View Single Post
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On Aug 1, 6:52*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 9:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 6:41 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 1 Aug., 18:08, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 8/1/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 1 Aug., 16:04, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

>
> >>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
> >>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.

>
> >>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
> >>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

>
> >>>>>>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
> >>>>>>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.

>
> >>>>>>> It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
> >>>>>>> claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.

>
> >>>>>> Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. *The
> >>>>>> first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
> >>>>>> which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
> >>>>>> prevents their conception and birth. *When it became apparent to me, in
> >>>>>> the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
> >>>>>> moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
> >>>>>> being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
> >>>>>> to identify who or what would experience it. *I was after him for over
> >>>>>> nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
> >>>>>> * * *I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
> >>>>>> to him, one of which was the unborn animals. *Finally, in August 2000,
> >>>>>> some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>>>> * * * * * *born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *that would experience the loss if their lives
> >>>>>> * * * * * *are prevented.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 08/01/2000

>
> >>>>>> When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
> >>>>>> it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. *But why
> >>>>>> wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
> >>>>>> conceive of the answer? *And what about all his other statements that
> >>>>>> support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
> >>>>>> or "pre-exist", in some sense? *For example:

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>>>>> * * * * * *them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>>>>> * * * * * *could have?
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 10/12/2001

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>>>>> * * * * * **could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>>>>> * * * * * *consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>>>>> * * * * * *these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>>>>> * * * * * *them from getting to live at all.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 10/19/1999

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *If you keep an animal from being born which
> >>>>>> * * * * * *would have been born without your interference,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *you have denied life to it, whether it actually
> >>>>>> * * * * * *exists or not.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
> >>>>>> * * * * * *even more wrong to discourage them from ever
> >>>>>> * * * * * *getting to experience life at all IMO.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

>
> >>>>>> It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
> >>>>>> ****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
> >>>>>> that haven't been conceived. *How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
> >>>>>> think they exist in some weird sense? *How *else* could he say that
> >>>>>> something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? *It is
> >>>>>> obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
> >>>>>> thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
> >>>>>> way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
> >>>>>> before they are actually alive. *Of course, it's always possible that he
> >>>>>> isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
> >>>>>> that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
> >>>>>> the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
> >>>>>> caught him in a different lie.

>
> >>>>>> So, that takes care of lie #1: *if we are to take him at his word that
> >>>>>> it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
> >>>>>> protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
> >>>>>> if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
> >>>>>> experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. *He
> >>>>>> only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
> >>>>>> sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.

>
> >>>>>> Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
> >>>>>> unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". *We can see that that's a lie
> >>>>>> first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
> >>>>>> unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
> >>>>>> experiencing "unfairness". *All of those statements demonstrate that he
> >>>>>> considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
> >>>>>> experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. *This is obvious
> >>>>>> and beyond dispute.

>
> >>>>>> The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
> >>>>>> being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
> >>>>>> distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
> >>>>>> which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
> >>>>>> consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
> >>>>>> unconceived animals are "something".

>
> >>>>>> Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
> >>>>>> *explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
> >>>>>> unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
> >>>>>> run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>>>> * * * * * *are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>>>> * * * * * **will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>>>> * * * * * *lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>>>> * * * * * *them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 12/09/1999

>
> >>>>>> ****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
> >>>>>> that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
> >>>>>> considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
> >>>>>> believe it. *You *know* he believes it. *The only reason you wish to
> >>>>>> pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
> >>>>>> such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
> >>>>>> you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. *That, Woopert, is
> >>>>>> evidence of your psychosis.

>
> >>>>> The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.

>
> >>>> He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.

>
> >>> Well, he's being inconsistent then, isn't he?

>
> >> No.

>
> > Really? He says things that contradict one another but he's not being
> > inconsistent?

>
> No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
> belief.
>


Well, I must have misunderstood you, then.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> * His statements of belief are obvious, and so are his lies. *Any
> >> reasonable person can tell them apart.

>
> >>>>> If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
> >>>>> arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
> >>>>> interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
> >>>>> your arguments.

>
> >>>> He wasn't. *His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
> >>>> resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. *He
> >>>> wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
> >>>> the same ones worded differently.

>
> >>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> >>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> >>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> >>>> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> >>>> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.