"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jul 12, 11:24 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > What you'd like to be the case, Ball, is that the only options for
>> > people who make radical challenges to the status quo regarding
>> > nonhuman animals are Singer's preference utilitarianism or a view
>> > which entails that we should never under any circumstances buy
>> > products whose production caused harm to "subjects-of-a-life", or
>> > sentient beings. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>
>> Why isn't it as simple as that, why are you not at least compelled to do
>> everything in your power? Because it's too inconvenient? The idea that
>> humans have rights implies that we do everything in our power to protect
>> their safety.
>>
>
> Well, you tell me.

Tell you what?

> My point was simply that one may coherently hold a
> view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals,

Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it is
completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry from
"equal consideration".

> but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power
> to avoid buying products whose production harmed them.

Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't intersect.
If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of
likelihood that they will intersect.

>You too hold
> such a view, so presumably you agree with me.

Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the
details. We need the details before I will say that we agree.

> It's pretty bloody
> obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a
> thick skull.

He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are
skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. And when those
are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it.

> If you want to talk about why I think it's consistent
> with equal consideration, well, fine, we can have another go at that,
> once we've come to an agreement about what we regard as reasonable
> behaviour.

Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. gimmee
details.

>> > That's what
>> > I've been trying to get into your thick skull for the last few years.
>>
>> Its not his skull with the density issues.
>>
>> > Yes, I think there are some constraints on how we should treat
>> > animals. The question is, what constraints? Suppose someone owned some
>> > land and had some dangerous machinery operating on it, and I ignored
>> > the warning sign and trespassed on the land and got killed. Has he
>> > violated my right to life? What if I lacked the ability to read the
>> > warning sign? Just how much is he obliged to do to take precautions
>> > against me getting hurt?
>>
>> If he knows that there are thousands of illiterate, innocent
>> rights-holders
>> that live and play around the machinery then he would be morally obliged
>> to
>> do more than put up a useless sign.
>>
>
> And if pretty much all food were produced in this way, how strong
> would be the obligation to boycott food produced in this way?

It wouldn't be produced that way in this reality, but if it was, in some
catastrophic sci-fi-like reality, then the whole regime of rights as we know
them would no longer apply. Killing innocent humans would become the norm as
it is with animals now, and would be acceptable.

>> > And is there an absolutely unconditional
>> > obligation for others to boycott any products he might produce with
>> > the machinery if he fails to take adequate precautions?
>>
>> Yes, assuming he isn't quickly arrested and locked up for gross
>> negligence.
>>
>> > All I've said is that there are some constraints on how we may treat
>> > animals. I think even Tibor Machan agrees with that: he thinks we may
>> > forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat.
>>
>> May intervene??? How ****ing wishy-washy are you?
>>
>
> Not wishy-washy at all. Just giving an accurate statement of his view.

Why? Why would anyone care about the thoughts of someone who has
intellectualized coming to the rescue of an animal in that situation to the
point where they think it's worth saying "we may forcibly intervene"? What
planet do both of you live on? Of course you intervene if you can, by any
means available.


>> > If you
>> > want to call my view an AR view, fine, but if you think I've committed
>> > myself to an absolute unconditional obligation to boycott products
>> > whose production involved harming animals, you're going to have to do
>> > more by way of showing me where. I haven't made any such commitment.
>> > It really is time you faced up to that reality.
>>
>> I've already faced up to the reality that you haven't taken any position
>> at
>> all.
>>
>
> I've said some things about what I believe, you've said some things
> about what you believe.I've done as much by way of clarifying my
> position as you have.

Then why don't I know what you believe?

> I don't take the view that you've shown that
> your position is more reasonable.

I don't know what your position is. You usually quote the positions of other
people or just meander on saying nothing..

>
>> >> 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 no more incoherent than your political
>> > philosophy, or any "welfarist's" philosophy regarding animals.
>>
>> What rubbish, your position on animal rights has no bearing on his
>> political
>> philosophy or anything else.
>>
>
> If my position is an incoherent slop, then so is his political
> philosophy and so is any welfarist position that I've encountered,
> including yours.

That doesn't make sense.

>
>> > Welfarists have just as much trouble defining and defending where to
>> > draw the line as I do.
>>
>> No they don't, nobody I have ever met has as much difficulty as you
>> defining
>> where they draw the line. The only thing you seem to know is that you
>> don't
>> accept the status quo.
>>
>
> You don't accept the status quo either.

Not many people who think at all about these things do.

> As far as I'm concerned, your
> position has no clearer a definition or foundation than mine. I don't
> know of any position that does.

I have stated my position clearly along with the basic rationale for it. You
no doubt can't recall any of that. If I restate it you will forget it again.

>
>> > And everyone is a welfarist, even Tibor Machan.
>>
>> Who the hell cares about him?
>>
>> >> 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, Ball. I wonder if you really believe all this
>> > nonsense. I might as well say that your position arises out of a
>> > sadistic desire to be cruel to animals. I have the same amount of
>> > empathy for animals as any normal person. There is no shame in having
>> > empathy for animals, and whether it is "feminine" or "masculine" is
>> > irrelevant. If your position is rationally preferable to mine, it
>> > should be possible to show me how by means of rational argument. This
>> > ain't it.
>>
>> You ain't doin' it either pal.
>>
>
> I've made comments about weaknesses in various arguments people have
> put here. They're all correct, no-one's rebutted them. People have
> tried to claim that my position has various flaws but no-one's
> succeeded in showing that either. All the antis have made quite a lot
> of ludicrous claims about me, including you, and they've utterly
> failed to support those claims.
>
> I don't maintain that I have knockdown arguments for why you should
> accept my position. The day I think I have something interesting to
> say about that I'll probably publish it somewhere and let you know.
> But I think that my position is at least as reasonable as any of yours
> and that pretty much everything that you say about me and my behaviour
> is a joke, and I've done a good job of explaining why. You've
> obviously all set yourselves the goal of attacking my position. So far
> you've failed to demonstrate that it's any weaker than any of yours.

You don't HAVE a ****ing position. All you do is talk in circles and say
nothing like you just spent two paragraphs doing. It's ****ing hilarious!

>> >> >> 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, Ball.
>>
>> > Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's
>> > pretty hard to find vegan girls.
>>
>> If you're as tedious in person as you are in this newsgroup its no wonder
>> you can't get laid.
>>
>
> Yeah, I should be more like you guys. I'm sure if I carried on the way
> you people do in this newsgroup women would be so impressed.

Most intelligent people have the good sense to tailor their style of
interaction to their audience. I don't speak to my wife the way I do when
I'm with my sports fan pals. I wouldn't speak to women I was interested in
the way I speak to idiots on the internet. You strike me as someone who
mumbles on about moral theories no matter who is listening.

[..]