On Mar 8, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >>>>>> * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >>>>>> * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> >>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> >>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> >>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> >>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> >>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> >>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> >>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> >>>>> these elements:
>
> >>>>> * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> >>>>> * * - You are an active participant
>
> >>>>> * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> >>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> >>>>> humans
>
> >>>>> * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> >>>>> legitimate goal.
>
> >>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> >>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> >>>>> your activity.
>
> >>>> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>
> >>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
> >>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
> >>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
>
> >> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
> >> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
> >> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.
>
> > I don't know what belief you are talking about,
>
> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.

I don't believe either of those things. You know that I have said in
the past that I would be prepared to countenance the consumption of
some animal products if I were satisfied that their production caused
no more harm than the production of plant-based food, and that Derek
responded to this by emailing my friend Angie and saying that I should
not be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW (which I wasn't, I
was merely a voting member). Also, I have explicitly pointed out in
the past that I don't think that refraining from eating animal
products necessarily makes one ethically superior to someone who does
eat animal products, because that is not the only dimension along
which moral conduct can be assessed.

As is often the case, you simply fail to represent my beliefs
correctly.

Now, as I say, it would be really great if you could just answer the
questions.