In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>>>>>rebut it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >>>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >>>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>>>
> >>>>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >>>>than you are doing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >>>
> >>>If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> >>>about sexually broomed children.
> >>
> >>No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
> >>that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
> >>doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
> >>others from doing it.
> >
> >
> > This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements.
>
> No, it isn't. It is absolutely essential to "moral
> requirements".
>
> You stupid gerbil-abusing homo.

I assume that you don't and never have broomed children. I further
assume since that you have stopped or never started that you know accept
your moral responsibility to stop all others from this action.

Do be clear in your thinking, Dutch!