: And in this you equate those who eat meat to those beat their wives : and children. It is right here where you disassociate yourself from : rational, intelligent, and thoughtful discourse and go down your lonely : road to social oblivion. If you think your viewpoint is valid, right, : and moral you are going to have to convince a very large majority.:
I never equated the two. That's a product of your petrified thinking.
I equated ignoring the havoc that others do, whether to animals or people, on a "live and let live" philosophy. Do you understand the difference?
: You are either convinced that your opinion cannot prevail in the arena
: of normal discourse (and have thus become a rhetorical terrorist) or
: you aren't bright enough to figure out that you're alienating every
: opposed mind with your rhetoric. Either way, you're not winning any
Insult me some more, Stu!
: : I'm happy to say that while I've graduated from college and beyond, I'm still anti-establishment, if by establishment you mean broadly
: accepted institutions like fast-food vendors which push garbage on
: children, profit-driven corporations which exploit their workers and
: destroy the environment, factory farms which abuse animals
: horrendously, political systems controlled by the rich for the benefit : of the rich, or...but you don't get the picture.
: Oh, we get the picture Mike. The question is: was the person painting it shooting for the ordered realism of Da Vinci or for the jumbled abstract of Picasso?
Did you hug yourself after writing this for being so clever? What you're saying, Stuart, is that anyone who disagrees with the way the world is run today must be immature, and that they really ought to grow up because father knows best. I don't know how old you are, Stu, but the same tired, reactionary rhetoric was used against Vietnam war protesters. It's obvious which side you're on, Stuart, but don't expect us to kowtow to you because you claim to be the all-knowing adult.