On Apr 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * *wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the default starting position.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, that is the way the world works.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> >>>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> >>>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> >>>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> >>>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
> >>>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
> >>>>>>>>>> of animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
> >>>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
> >>>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
> >>>>>>>> you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
> >>>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> >>>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> >>>>>>> to humans',
>
> >>>>>> You aren't.
>
> >>>>> Why do you think that?
>
> >>>> You've told us.
>
> >>> When did I tell you that?
>
> >> Several times over the last couple of years.
>
> > Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?
>
> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. *Perhaps
> Derek will help you find one.

I have never told you any such thing. You can't produce any citations
to support your claim because they don't exist.