Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a
>>>>>>> completely >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are
>>>>>>> closely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even
>>>>>>> laudable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >> >> >> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the
>>>>>>> validity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal
>>>>>>> consideration and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get.
>>>>>>> Singer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you consider raising livestock to be an example of
>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bizarre.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example
>>>>>>> of a theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last
>>>>>>> time I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried >> > to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle.
>>>>>>> Perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and
>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like
>>>>>>> you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. >> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and
>>>>>>> nothing so far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >> led
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that
>>>>>>> will >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlighen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so
>>>>>>> by now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one
>>>>>>> example of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is
>>>>>>> not saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone
>>>>>>> who didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference
>>>>>>> utilitarianism not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for
>>>>>>> you to view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect
>>>>>>> on my part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say
>>>>>>> "Would you mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism
>>>>>>> is?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a
>>>>>>> way that any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean.
>>>>>>> Then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to
>>>>>>> perform that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
>>>>>>> future time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
>>>>>>> death for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sentient being, like a chicken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge
>>>>>>> applies
>>>>>>>>>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
>>>>>>> interests of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
>>>>>>> chicken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar in all morally relevant respects.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Circular.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what
>>>>>>>>>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how
>>>>>>> much is
>>>>>>>>>>> at stake for the affected parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why equal consideration should be given to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences of non-human beings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to
>>>>>>>>>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something,
>>>>>>>>>> based on assertions you make. You must support the
>>>>>>>>>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well,
>>>>>>>>>> why not?" is not support.
>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
>>>>>>>>>> - always.
>>>>>>>>> If I point out that existing institutions are based on
>>>>>>> discrimination
>>>>>>>>> that lacks justification
>>>>>>>> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the
>>>>>>>> lack of justification. You fail.
>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd.
>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The
>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for
>>>>>> change.
>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the
>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to
>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of
>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests
>>>>> of fair-skinned people".
>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made
>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it,
>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and
>>>> you can't.
>>> There's really no need for foul language.
>> You practically beg for abuse.
>>
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do.


>>> Just elaborate your point.
>>> *How* did they make the case?
>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to
>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look
>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their
>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine.
>>
>
> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was
> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests
> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair-
> skinned people,

You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the
abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted
to do with respect to animals. It's because you know
you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who
doesn't like to work.


>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras"
>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness
>> is really astonishing.
>
> We've made a good case.

You haven't. You've assumed that which you must
demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show
that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it
has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water.