[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: belverron I did not address the validity of this argument, only that you accused him of referencing something you seemed to think buried in past posts when it was, in fact, in his previous post. And then, as if dealing with a child, you told him this was the second time you'd asked him to be clear about what he was referencing.

BECAUSE, at that time it was not there! I am not sure if he went back and put it in with an edit, but I do know he did post it as a test URL after that. I sure did not come across it as a link previously. You made it a link for him just now. But, that is not the only assertion he made without providing any link when asked.

He has since reposted his article, but here it is.

Just read it. Actually, I have seen this article before. In fact, it supports my arguement in ways, not only with Kamehameha but also now with Captain Chaos.

I will use it later.

I wasn't referring to the mods. People will simply give you more credence if you don't behave like an ass.

This is borderline ad hominem, for I could insinuate the same charge to you in the same sentence structure. Focus on the issues, beveroon, and let my debate style be mine or let the responsibility of me not getting credence be a worry of my own. I will PM you when I want your personal advice. The mechanics are not the issue and my style, whether you like it or not, does not violate any forum rules.

Self-righteousness was fine for the pulpit when black ministers moved against segregation. This is not a pulpit;

Are you speaking figuratively with the term "pulpit" or are you speaking of a real church "pulpit" from whence they spoke against segregation? Surely they spoke against segregation in other venues than churches. They spoke in places, too, that allowed discussion and debate. Volconvo is JUST THAT! -- another venue.

Segregation is wrong. Exploitation which causes pain and suffering is wrong. Sorry, but you do not define the limits of what are acceptable arguments. You are resorting to some declarations of your own which you seem to be against below.

it is a debate forum, as you are so intent on pointing out to everyone. And your job is not to declare the actions of an opponent wrong, it is to prove them wrong.

Proof is the mea culpa -- an accomplishment that eludes most on most topics, especially as it pertains to social movments still in their infancy. That which are truths which are self evident is often resisted by the status quo and it is no secret that laws always lag behind advancements in social movements to grant rights. Barring final proof, advancing the arguments are themselves valuable.

The problem is that they are working from a different set of assumptions than you are, and you are not likely to make that point.

And that is why this is an ongoing debate. I have no idea when any particular individual will adopt my assumptions. That is the purpose of debate -- to keep putting forth arguments and improving them. I certainly was changed from a flesh eater to a meat eater after having to admit my previous assumptions were wrong and then adopt a new set. I will not guess what the audience will do. They, the participants or the onlookers will do what they will.

So, you must assert with whatever strength you can that we are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of nonhuman life and work from there. Which is not the same as declaring this treatment of animals a wrong practice.

Belveroon, have you been reading carefully? I have not just declared. What makes you think I am just declaring when I go through great lengths explaining my thoughts with words such as "because" or "if" "due to" or "whence" or "when" or "so"? -- all words that use steps in reasoning out thoughts on issues -- not to mention my quizitivie throw back questions questioning and challenging the reasons of others who engage me. Clearly you can see I am in a dance of engagement with my opponants and not merely a detatched declaration. I even go out of my way to direct them by name, showing you that I am directly answering them. Please note all that and you may know that I need no primer on mechanics on debate.