"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 29, 5:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> groups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> 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. If someone maintains that there's a
>> >> >> > justification, it's clearly their job to provide it. You utterly
>> >> >> > incredible fool.
>>
>> >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> moral
>> >> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal
>> >> >> deaths,
>> >> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from
>> >> >> others,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified
>> >> >> discrimination.
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension.
>>
>> >> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally
>> >> > permissible
>> >> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On
>> >> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products
>> >> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not
>> >> > yet
>> >> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not
>> >> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy
>> >> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying.
>> >> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make
>> >> > a
>> >> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in
>> >> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I
>> >> > am
>> >> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully
>> >> > I
>> >> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like
>> >> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions
>> >> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except
>> >> > that
>> >> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying
>> >> > factory-
>> >> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that.
>>
>> >> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce,
>> >> probably
>> >> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely.
>> >> You
>> >> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to
>> >> others.
>>
>> > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating
>> > animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You
>> > want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed"
>> > which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead.
>>
>> Factory farming of vegetables, grain and fruit: the use of large machines
>> for cultivating, fertilizing, seeding, spraying, weeding and harvesting,
>> all
>> which make it impossible for wildlife to be seen or protected from the
>> effects of those incursions. Davis showed that even one pass of a hay
>> mower
>> had a devastating impact on the population of field mice. Then there is
>> the
>> impact of the substances themselves, not the least of which, but one not
>> often mentioned is chemical nitrogen which destroys the biodiversity of
>> the
>> soil that supports a rich community of organic life. Factory farming of
>> vegetables is far more deadly than factory farming of animals.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Factory farming requires more crop inputs per serving of
> food, so it's much more deadly. It also involves much more cruel
> treatment.

Like every good little ARA, when it starts to look bad for you you just move
the goalposts.


>> > I simply made the
>> > statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy
>> > factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally
>> > impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any
>> > indication why this is an unreasonable stance.
>>
>> It's only morally impermissible in the shadow of your own intolerance.
>
> What intolerance, exactly?

Your intolerance.

> You yourself are intolerant of some things.

Yes, so what?

> Why does this raise problems for me but not for you?

My intolerance is reasonable, yours is not.

>
>> I
>> realize that your self-image is caught up in the notion that you have
>> risen
>> above the killing habits of other men, but I've get news for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > There are no more
>> >> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you
>>
>> >> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance
>> >> respondents.
>>
>> > You took it upon yourself
>>
>> That's right, get over it, your whining is more tiresome than your
>> hypocrisy.
>
> If you're going to maintain that I'm a hypocrite and you're not,
> without bothering to defend that contention, when I've explained why
> it can't be defended, then you're a tiresome stupid presumptuous
> little twit who isn't worth my time.

I've told you why, you don't listen.