says...
You're buttuming again. I said no such thing. Stick with what I actually said -- that is, unless you have to make things up to "win" the argument.
It is a well-established fact that raising and killing cattle for meat is unnecessary and harmful to the environment.
Please explain the difference.
No, you can't have a compromise.
If killing seals for their fur is wrong because it's "unnecessary", killing cattle for meat is also wrong, because it is also unnecessary.
Ah, but you want to have it both ways, right? Seals bad, cattle good! Fur bad, meat good! Killing bad, killing good! Oops! It doesn't add up.
Ah, a legend in your own mind.
Not at all. Follow the logic.
You say it's wrong to kill for fur because it's unnecessary.
I say it's wrong to kill for meat by the same reasoning because it, too, is unnecessary.
You condemn killing for fur, which we agree is unnecessary. But you condone eating meat, which is also unnecessary, and far more harmful to the environment than killing seals. And you accuse ME of hypocrisy? BWAAAHAAHAHAAHAA!
Face it -- your position is indefensible.
Deal with your own hypocrisy. Eating meat is unnecessary, but you try to justify it. Don't bullpoo yourself. The line you've drawn is convenient for your conscience, but little else. Continue to ignore what happens in the dissolution house. Continue to ignore what happens in the chicken farms. Continue to ignore that the core of your argument is wrong. Willful blindness will save you from an attack of conscience.
Verno
