On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > 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".

Why bother, with a psychotic like you?


> 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.

Correct; you did.


> This is false,

Nope; it's true.


> I have never made any such statement,

You have done.


> and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because
> I never have.

You most certainly have. It was when you said you couldn't be bothered
to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that
caused harm to animals. You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate
similar harm to humans. Clearly, you don't give the interests of the
animals you harm the same consideration. You continue to take medicines
that were routinely tested with lethal results on animals, but you would
never take medicines that were routinely tested with lethal results on
humans.