On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.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.
>

I'm afraid the point you are trying to make here is lost on me.

> >>> 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.

No, I don't. But it's not a particularly important point.

> You've
> tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.

"Financial support" is a correct description. You've engaged in some
ludicrous and comical ranting about it, which achieved nothing.

> 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 ****.
>

Blah blah blah...

> >>> 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.
>

We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.
Why is it that your position is reasonable but I am sleazily making
"exemptions" to what my beliefs would "really" demand of me for the
sake of my comfort?

> >>> 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.
>

No, not at all. My decisions about my lifestyle are a lot less self-
serving than any of yours. You're trying to tell me that I "should"
adhere to this incredibly high standard, when you yourself do pretty
much nothing. It's odd that you don't seem to feel the least
embarrassment.

> >>> 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.
>

Nope.

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

Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
the amount of suffering in the world like me, instead of farcically
calling me "amoral" and "self-serving"? You might feel better about
yourself.