nbcrusader said:
Dude, I answered you question in the first two lines.
I added the additional comment to maintain the context of the discussion.
Unless you on omnipresent, you can't address all issues at the same time.
And I really don't want to get into a meaningless "I care more than you" type discussion.
I'm going to number these points so they dont get lost again:
1. No, you didn't actually answer it. You dodged it, and I suspect the reasons why are because like many of your viewpoints, you seem uncomfortable in being anything like forthright in presenting them. You could simply say "Look, I
like animals and all, and obviously dont like to see them harmed but as for rights I dont believe in it as I dont think they are worthy of rights of people. They're lesser species."
2. Instead you brought up comparisons like HIV and cancer as if
that somehow matters and, on your own doing, began the heirarchy of 'care' on issues.
3. I simply asked if you think animal protection and rights is important to you, and you failed to answer it; skirting around it as you do on many topics and seem only keen on playing semantics and word games in your ever-vague replies. So I am going to take your fumbling replies to mean you actually dont think animals are very important at all and going by previous comments you've made in the past that they dont have souls and so on, so therefore are not so worthy. You care, but rather indifferently. Those who abuse will get theirs, right?
Now if I am very wrong in summing you up, then so be it. You present no other way of interpreting these kinds of things. So perhaps you could look at how you engage in these discussions and think about answering direct questions, I dunno, directly?
You either think it's important and worth a lot of fuss, or not. You seem to not. Fair enough. I guess. As confusing as it is, given what you essentially are.