On Apr 18, 1:31*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > *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.
>
> So it just happens to be.
>
> > 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,
>
> Yes, you did.

You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I
didn't"; Yes, you did". You have put forward a claim that I once made
a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount
of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
interests. This is false, I have never made any such statement, and
you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because I
never have. You made the claim; the burden is on you to substantiate
it. You say that you are unwilling to waste your time substantiating
the claim; well, you have wasted just as much time engaging in a
childless and pointless "No, I didn't"; "Yes, you did" exchange. There
is no point in making claims that you are not willing to substantiate.