On Apr 17, 9:23*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > * * *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 certainly have.
>
> >>> Then why is it that you are not able to show me where?
>
> >> Who says I'm not able?
>
> > If you were able then why wouldn't you?
>
> Lots of reasons. *Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.

So you would apparently like us to believe.

As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
interests, and you can't produce any example of my telling you this
because I never did.