View Single Post
  #395 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:42 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.

>
> > > > It's not false bifurcation.

>
> > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.

>
> > No, it's not.

>
> Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.

>
> WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> NEITHER.
>
> > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > is morally permitted or you don't.

>
> > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > assume that there is a moral issue.

>
> > No, they do not.

>
> YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.

>
> > I'm afraid

>
> So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> then.
>
> > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.

>
> You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> "delicate BOY".
>


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat, was that an example of your eminent
maturity?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > >> 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;

>
> > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?

>
> > > See below, ****drip.

>
> > > > > he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.

>
> > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact

>
> > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.

>
> > A very obvious fact,

>
> Not a fact.
>
> > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > obvious to anyone who can understand English.

>
> It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> white ones. The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> *prohibited*. That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way. If
> there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.
>
> > > > that he thinks it's morally permitted.

>
> > > It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.

>
> > No it doesn't,

>
> It does. You are wrong - again.
>
> > > > > To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.

>
> > > > You can't deny that a moral question can be raised

>
> > > K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
> > > is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.

>
> > That's not coherent.

>
> Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
> you.
>
> > If you don't think something is morally
> > prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.

>
> False bifurcation.
>
> > > He thinks -
> > > correctly - there is no moral issue.

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

>
> > > > You're such

>
> > > I'm right.

>
> > 'Fraid not.

>
> I can assure you I am.
>
> > > > All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> > > > 31 years old.

>
> > > Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
> > > inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
> > > not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
> > > years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
> > > world, you are far younger. It shows.

>
> > How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
> > thinking this? I'm fascinated.

>
> It's obvious.
>
> > > > > > 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.

>
> > > > If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,

>
> > > Not what we're talking about.

>
> > Yes it is,

>
> No, it is not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -