"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:

You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling
Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
We all know it.
Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Really.
Waiting....
Really.
Can't, can you.
Have.
Not even an attempt. As per usual.
Have done much more than an attempt.
Where, ball?
Everywhere,
[snip bull****]

[snip bull****]

Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

You tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.
Spot the differences, troll?
The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.

In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival.

Irrelevant.

Ipse dixit B$.

You cannot "justify" lions' predation by
invoking humans' legal right to *resist* predation by other humans.
They are completely different.

In both cases *necessity* is regarded as justification.

The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another human.

What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?

rabid froth snipped