"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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!

Who me?

You get your jollies by being silly and making people angry, don't you
naughty boy?

Fess up.