View Single Post
  #391 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rudy Canoza Rudy Canoza is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:

>
> > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > >> all.

>
> > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > >> examined at all.

>
> > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > >> No.

>
> > > > > Yes, of course he does.

>
> > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > false bifurcation.

>
> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.

>
> > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.

>
> > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > not what he thinks.

>
> > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > you can't admit it.

>
> > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.

>
> > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > eating meat.

>
> > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.

>
> > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > talent.

>
> You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> talent or not.


I do know, rupie. I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.

I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.