:: 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?
That's a mighty fine distinction there, Mike. Would you now go on
record as not considering meat eating to be on the same moral level
as wife beating? Please?
::: 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!
Actually Mike, I did not think you would choose to be called stupid
so you would be left with no option other than to choose the first
notion of rhetorical terrorist - which you are if you don't retract
some of your wild rhetoric.
:: Did you hug yourself after writing this for being so clever?
No. My wife does that after a long day of destroying the environment,
murdering, and pillaging.
:: 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.
That depends on what you mean by "Father".
:: 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.
I'm 38 but I'm still working at being an adult. Age offers insights
to the astute and bitterness to the dogmatic. I'm halfway through (God
willing) and have only learned that the realm of what I don't know is
expanding. I have only this advice: Know exactly what you believe and
know exactly why. If you do this well, you'll find yourself having
faith as the basis of many of your positions - faith in yourself as
the arbiter of morality. That is the root of our argument.