Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> upert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compel us to treat them similarly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chickens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "similar".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did you mean, then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Protection of their very lives with something like murder laws that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protected by. The relevant similarity between humans and chickens is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to feel pain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't chickens have an interest in continuing to live?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that another relevant similarity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treat them similarly to typical humans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you've told me you're not interested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To hell with "the literature", that's a diversion. Say it in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to some extent. I've been starting by discussing Singer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views, just for the purpose of explaining what they are, not of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defending them. You haven't been very willing to listen. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex issue and there are many different positions available which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are consistent with equal consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've provided no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are due equal consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get serious, whenever asked to provide support for the idea you reply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" requires no support and that the onus is on its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detractors to show why it should NOT be granted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've made a case that there's a presumption in favour of equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't. You've merely asserted your primitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See my reply to him.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then when your own cushy lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought up you simper that you are no under no moral obligation to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything more than what you personally feel comfortable with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that is not true. I have never said any such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what you've said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow
>>>>>>>>>>>> your own food
>>>>>>>>>>> This is true but
>>>>>>>>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine
>>>>>>>>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering.
>>>>>>>>> You really are a bit weird
>>>>>>>> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false.
>>>>>>> Very sequitur,
>>>>>> That's not even a sentence, skirt boy.
>>>>> Of course not
>>>> So learn how to write.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there is a "but".
>>>>>>>> No, no "but", skirt-boy.
>>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point
>>>>>> No point.
>>>>> There was a point
>>>> No point.
>>>>>>>> You want that cushy life of
>>>>>>>> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing
>>>>>>>> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing
>>>>>>>> animals for your food.
>>>>>>> Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you.
>>>>>> Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours
>>>>>> does.
>>>>> So it's been said many times
>>>> And demonstrated equally many times.
>>> So where can I find
>> Google is your friend.
>>
>
> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is
> contrary to my professed values.

I have. So have Dutch and Chico.

You participate in processes that slaughter animals.
This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie.


>>>>>>>>>> You prefer
>>>>>>>>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of
>>>>>>>>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals.
>>>>>>>>> You think that I am committed to ideals
>>>>>>>> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a
>>>>>>>> couple of years now that you don't really believe the
>>>>>>>> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber
>>>>>>>> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's
>>>>>>>> pants.
>>>>>>> The ideals I was referring to,
>>>>>> "ar".
>>>>> You just keep mindlessly uttering those two letters over and over
>>>> Not mindlessly - based on what you've written. You
>>>> went to great lengths in a thread with Derek to claim
>>>> you aren't a consequentialist.
>>> That's right,
>> So, you're a deontologist (you've said so, as well.)
>> And you believe in animal "rights", not animal liberation.
>>
>
> I'm a deontologist

You profess to believe in 'ar'. You don't /really/
believe it, of course, as your rights-violating
behavior shows.


>>>> You've also gone to
>>>> great lengths to show you're influenced more by Regan
>>>> and Francione and that brand of ****wit than by
>>>> Singer's brand of ****wit.
>>> Oh, I don't know about that.
>> I do, you wheezy histrionic feminine windbag. It was
>> liberally sprinkled throughout your early posts.
>>
>
> I may have said things that

You have said - not "may" have said - that show you
profess to believe in 'ar'. It's bullshit, of course,
as your rights-violating behavior shows.


>>>> I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent
>>>> slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently
>>>> define or defend it.
>>> As discussed a few times
>> It's incoherent slop, rupie, but it tends toward
>> deontological "ar".
>>
>
> Your political philosophy is

Your animal-ethics beliefs are slop - utterly
incoherent slop.


>>>> You just seem to be a
>>>> Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given
>>>> that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion,
>>>> and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola
>>>> you've read can conceal that fact.
>>> You really are a joke
>> non sequitur, skirt-boy
>>
>
> Sequitur very much

That isn't even English, skirt-boy.

Your earlier comments were non sequitur.


>>>>>> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's
>>>>>> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy.
>>>>> *What* do you I say in order to get laid
>>>> All the "ar" blabber.
>>> That's not an answer
>> It is an answer, rupie skirt-boy.
>
> No, it's not.

It is, rupie skirt-boy.


>> All the 'ar' blabber
>> is just to get laid by other skirt-boy histrionic 'ar'
>> fanatics.
>>
>>> Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's
>>> pretty hard to find vegan girls.
>> No, it isn't. Most 'vegans' are girls. The rest are
>> queers like you.
>
> Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW

Mostly girls, and the rest queers.


>> But you're not interested in the
>> girls, rupie.
>
> Yes, folks, I think we finally have it:

rupie is a queer.


>>>>>>>>>>>> (except you don't do maths,
>>>>>>>>>>> This statement is incorrect,
>>>>>>>>>> It is correct.
>>>>>>>>> Ah, the combination
>>>>>>>> The statemebt is correct.
>>>>>>> Well, I would certainly
>>>>>> The statement is correct.
>>>>> You know
>>>> We all know.
>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>> Blabber. It sure as **** isn't going to get you that
>> Field medal.
>>
>
> Pfffft.

That's the sound of the air going out of your tiny hope
of winning the Field medal.


>>>>>>>>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka
>>>>>>>>>> bothering people during their dinner),
>>>>>>>>> We call businesses,
>>>>>>>> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you.
>>>>>>> Some of them don't want to talk to me.
>>>>>> NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech.
>>>>> you don't know anything about my job.
>>>> I know you bother people doing it. It's an inherent
>>>> part of the job.
>>> A small number of people express annoyance.
>> They all do.
>>
>
> The list gets bigger and bigger.

Right!


>>>>>>>>>> and you do a
>>>>>>>>>> little animal "rights" passivism.
>>>>>>>>> I do some activism
>>>>>>>> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's
>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>> Yes, it's all.
>>>>> Sometimes,
>>>> ALL the time, skirt-boy. Passive blabbering of
>>>> bullshit is all you do.
>>> I take it you know this
>> Right.
>>
>
> As I say,

No, as *I* say, skirt-boy: passive blabbering of 'ar'
dogma is all you do.


>>>>>>>> That's passivism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at
>>>>>>>>>>>> "ar".)
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>> As always
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially)
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe,
>>>>>>>>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not
>>>>>>>>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience.
>>>>>>>>> Why "must" I believe this?
>>>>>>>> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of
>>>>>>>> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below
>>>>>>>> about your not really believing in "ar" at all.
>>>>>>> So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing
>>>>>>> in this.
>>>>>> Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar".
>>>>> Could you please answer the question
>>>> Done, many times over.
>>> Well
>> Read it.
>>
>
> Read what?

The answers.


>>>>>>>>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim
>>>>>>>>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must
>>>>>>>>>> believe in at least that one "right",
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR"
>>>>>>>> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in
>>>>>>>> all that you have said.
>>>>>>> If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails
>>>>>>> that I am morally required
>>>>>> You've professed belief in "ar",
>>>>> Whatever that means.
>>>> Yes, exactly. You've professed belief in it,
>>> In *what*?
>> 'ar'. 'ar' bullshit, to be precise.
>>
>
> That's not an answer.

It certainly is. The fatuous, lacking-seriousness
question was, "in *what*" do you believe? I supplied
the answer: you believe in 'ar' bullshit.


>>>> but the
>>>> incoherence of your apparent position leads one to
>>>> wonder just what the hell you really mean. Apart from
>>>> not putting animal bits in your mouth, it doesn't seem
>>>> to mean a ****ing thing; certainly nothing concrete.
>>>>>> and that requires you
>>>>>> not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease.
>>>>>>>>>> but your behavior
>>>>>>>>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the
>>>>>>>>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess.
>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in
>>>>>>>> You're just a mess, skirt-boy.
>>>>>>> Let's talk about the foundations of
>>>>>> You're just a total mess, skirt-boy.
>>>>> Whatever.
>>>> No, not "whatever", skirt-boy - a mess. An incoherent,
>>>> gooey, hyper-emotional mess.
>>> Why don't you
>> Gooey, incohere, hyper-emotional mess, skirt-boy.
>> That's what you are.

Well, then!


>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not.
>>>>>>>>>> So...we're clear on this, then.
>>>>>>>>> It's false.
>>>>>>>> It is true.
>>>>>>> An assertion isn't an argument.
>>>>>> The truth has already been established.
>>>>> You've never stated which moral belief I have expressed a commitment
>>>>> to
>>>> That killing animals is wrong.
>>> No-one advocates this as an exceptionless
>> Not a word.
>>
>
> Yes, it is.

It isn't. That's why my word processor underlined it:
as a misspelled or non-existent word.


>>> rule, certainly I don't.
>> No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy
>> exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent.
>>
>
> What's incoherent about it?

There's no coherent theory behind it. It's just
"rupie's comfort and ease", with no standards whatever.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same reason you do. I've yet to be persuaded that there's any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelling reason to do otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Q-U-A-L consideration you idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've yet to be persuaded that equal consideration entails that we must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abolish commercial agriculture, or that individuals now have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligation to stop buying its products
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are.
>>>>>>>> QED
>>>> So.
>>> "Quod erat demonstrandum"
>> Right.
>
> I must try this

Heh heh heh...