Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> You're such a child

No.

You *do* invite abuse.


>>>>> 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.
>
> Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the
> abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't.

Exactly so.


> I, on the other
> hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to
> deny it.

And that's wrong. You're making an assertion, and
failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to
disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off,
because the burden of proof is on you to support your
assertion.


>> It's because you know
>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who
>> doesn't like to work.
>>
>
> You really are quite absurd.

No.


>>>> 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.
>
> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination.

The burden of proof is on you to support your
assertion, and you can't meet it. You'll never meet
it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water.