www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Bill wrote:
Rat & Swan wrote:
<snip>
<restore> > Engaging in competition, defending one's food-source,
You are not defending your food source, bitch. You tried that approach once before; it failed.
What else would it be but defending one's food source? You never explained that.
McDonalds may compete for customers against Burger King. They may not kill Burger King franchise holders as a means of competition.
Once again -- that is because there are other means of competition available, and both Burger King and McDonalds exist within a mutually accepted legal system. That is the alternative method available in that situation.
All your shitty sophistry about "defending" the grain at grain elevators against rodents failed to establish that you need to kill the rodents,
I said that there would be no need to kill them if the caretakers of the grain used appropriate alternate methods.
They use appropriate methods.
I said killing the rodents is not an appropriate method.
>You approve of them:
I said I didn't.
you buy the grain.
Mind-reading again; you don't know that.
Your snip, as always was unethical. You defend YOUR participation in lethal extermination of rodents as "defending your food source".
I don't. I said -- which is true -- that using lethal methods against an opponent does not prove that one does not believe that opponent has rights, and that this idea is supported by theories of just war. Why always make everything a personal attack?
<snip>
One has a right to self-defense if the alternative is starvation.
It isn't self defense, and there is no risk of starvation.
It is if no other source of food is available. Try, just once, a thought experiment instead of a personal attack.
<snip>
I am not killing animals.
You are killing animals.
I am not.
<snip>
Fundamentally, you are an immoral person.
Opinions, Jonnie, are like assholes. Everybody has them.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
