Stuart: "Mostly, I try to respond to the entire post unless the writer has merely provided a list of links or a book title to answer to. I generally see those people as not wishing to debate single issues, but rather, claiming victory because of the fact that someone or some organization had the initiative to set up a web-site or write a book. That's a lame way to go about making a point."
So is THIS why you keep dropping out of debates with me? Or do I bore you? Any of the books, references, etc. I provided in debates were usually to back up an earlier argument I made. Seems to me you even asked for some references on occasion. Sometimes I list a book I consider to be particularly well-written, in which an author argues a point or series of points better than I do. I TRY to argue the point myself first, then suggest a book you could read if you wanted to.
Stuart: "The animal rights movement cannot gain ground by attempting to manipulate emotions so they've taken to attempting to intellectualize their agenda. But Animals and humans are not equal and everyone knows it. This will fail too. Additionally, If animals and humans are equal, then we who reside at the top of the food chain will dominate by natural law and eat what we please. No amount of intellectualizing will stop the lion from shredding the lamb."
I guess you know something I don't know. I was bombarded all the way through school (and church) with the assertion that humans are superior to animals. I, like most other people, believed it. Then one day I took a moment to reflect on the REASONS given as to why humans are superior. I couldn't find ONE valid argument as to why humans are superior. To this day I fail to see why humans are superior. We contribute no more to the planet's well-being or the life/death cycle than any other species. Every species plays a part. Take away one species, and things will go all wonky for a while. We are the only species who has a net harmful effect on the planet. Superior? Not in my books.