Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
>>> more
>>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>
>
> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
ethics is not a solitary endeavor.


>>> Inflicting any more
>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>>> currently being violated.
>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>
>
> Not by me. On my behalf.'

No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy. You've
tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
I pounded it back up your ass with a club. It is not
"mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
repeated, fully aware participation.

Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
****. It's active participation in a process, with
your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.


>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.

It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
your supposed beliefs would impose on you.


>>> And
>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

We most certainly are, you cocksucker.


>>> All deontologists hold that
>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>>> AR. Okay, fine.
>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>> what you believe.
>
> I've said quite a lot about it.

Then you deny it.

You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.