View Single Post
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" > wrote
>
> Derek wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >
>> >Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather
>> >than study your clarifications.

>>
>> No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand
>> clarification when they make no sense.

>
> I have absolutely no problem with that.


Except he is telling a bald-faced lie, in this case he took my original
statement at face value, concluded that it made no sense, then not only
didn't ask for a clarification, he then refused to accept a clarification
when it was offered, because it undermined the case he had built up against
me using the original imperfect statement.

> In this instance he
> clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge
> as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but
> instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack
> the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman.
>
>> Take his latest, for example;
>>
>> "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to
>> be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible.
>> It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against
>> us not to be abused."
>> Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d
>>
>> That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying
>> to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a
>> greater one,

>
> Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic
> to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not
> against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes
> that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal
> than abuse. Perhaps both.


Read what I wrote again, particularly the word "plausible", morals have to
be plausible. For example we can't say that it's is immoral to kill plants,
that's not plausible. We could decide that it is immoral to kill white
roses, that *is* plausible, but why should we do that? It makes more sense
to allow people to kill their own white roses if they want to. By the same
reasoning it's not plausible to say it's immoral to kill animals. Animal
life is as ubiquitous as plant life, probably more so. So we can say it's
immoral to kill, say pigs, but why should we?

The only context in which killing an animal is comparable to abusing it is
when it is killed in the course of or as a form of abuse, in that case it is
a severe outcome of abuse. If an animal is killed in a justifiable way, then
it has no relation to abuse. Killing and abuse (i.e. torture) are two
completely different things. Torture is virtually always considered wrong in
every circumstance. Killing is not, killing is part of living, it's a harsh
reality of life.

>
>> but when asked for it he refuses to give it,
>> opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds
>> the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say
>> that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face
>> value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you
>> arse-licking ******?

>
> Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif?


He sure does. He turns into an obseqiuous little toady when addressing Leif,
despite the fact that their views are 180 degrees apart.

>> > Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else.

>>
>> If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then
>> so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing.

>