Dutch wrote:
> "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.

Yes. The rest of my paragraph says more or less the same thing.
What I meant was that I had no problem with him taking your
statement at face value, initially, before you clarified it for him.
>
> > 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.

This appears to me to be a fully adequate clarification of your
position.

> >
> >> 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.
> >