View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.

>>
>> Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

>
>No, I never imagined anything about his article.


You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat.", and when I
asked where, you answered that "His article doesn't
explicitly do that." Thus, you imagined it did.

> I extended it. Legitimately.


You extended it without any support for the conclusion
drawn from that extension, and didn't have the guts to
announce that you did extend it to include your wrong
conclusion, either. That's not what I would call an honest
or legitimate extension.

>>>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.

>>
>> Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
>> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>> by the production of the crops they eat."

>
>I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
>this.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon.

>> What you
>> should have written was that YOUR extension of it
>> makes that link rather than the article itself.

>
>I never wrote that the *article* did it.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon. You should've stated that your extension
to Matheny's article allegedly links vegetarians to collateral
deaths, rather than Matheny's article itself.

>I said that Matheny's analysis did it.


No. Your EXTENSION to Matheny's analysis does
it, allegedly; not Matheny's analysis itself. You lied
again. When will you ever learn?