On Jul 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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?
>

You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely
everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes
harm to animals. You also apparently think that it is somehow harder
for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can
spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion.

I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support
for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". Well, look, I'll tell
you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up
with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a
look. Okay?

> > 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".
>

Yes, it is.

> > 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.
>

Exactly.

> >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.
>

I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics,
but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point.

> > 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.

Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of
Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's
read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to
speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that
I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my
position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make
his case.

It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've
made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to
communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies
with me, save your breath).

> And when those
> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it.
>

Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on
what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I
pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and
reasonable. But that's not the approach that any of you are taking.
You all think you already understand my position well enough to know
that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration.
Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a
demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views
about whether that's an adequate argument.

> > 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.
>

Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm
not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good
faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it.
I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've
formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and
uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think.

I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's
the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say
anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I
wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was
true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just
analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when
I do that it's condescending.

Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is
taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If
you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or
inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it.
Criticize the arguments, not the person.

>
>
>
>
> >> > 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.
>

Right. Well, there you go. But would you agree that there would still
be an obligation to make some effort, "every reasonable effort" if I
dare use such a vague phrase, to minimize the harm done?

This is why I say my position is consistent with equal consideration.
If we would be prepared to do the same things to humans in relevantly
similar circumstances, then I say that's consistent with equal
consideration.

> >> > 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.
>

Some would say the same thing about rescuing battery hens and lab
animals, but that's a bit more controversial.

The point is that everyone agrees that there are some constraints on
how we should treat animals. Even Tibor Machan agrees, and he's an
extremely strong critic of animal rights. Everyone says there are some
constraints, everyone says the constraints fall short of the point
where we should boycott all commercial agriculture. So the question is
where do you draw the line. Now, you and Ball apparently think that
for some reason I've committed myself to saying I have to boycott all
commercial agriculture. Ball's really done nothing at all by way of
explaining why he thinks that. I can guess what you're going to say,
I've been talking about equal consideration. Well, I'll try to say
something a bit more articulate about that. But, really, if you people
are going to behave towards me in the way that you do I think you need
to do a bit more by way of making a case that I've made such a
commitment. Everyone else is allowed to say some ways of treating
animals are wrong without being called a hypocrite for not growing all
their own food. But I get told I'm self-serving and not serious about
ethics. I am trying to explain why I think this is such a farce.

> >> > 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'm not sure. I'll try and make it clearer if you like. Just have
respect for the fact that I'm making a good faith effort to have a
serious conversation with you, and cut out the comments about me being
a "sleazy sophist" and engaging in "verbal tap-dancing". Because
whatever's going wrong, it's not that. I've had lots of conversations
with people about all sorts of issues throughout my adult life and no-
one else has formed that impression of me. I've given a talk about
these issues at a conference and I get paid to lecture about these
issues at Sydney University. We may be having trouble communicating,
for whatever reason, but that's no reason for you to be rude. If you
can't bring yourself to assume good faith, then I won't bother.

> > 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..
>

All right, well, I'll try to be more articulate by way of presenting
my position.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> 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.
>

Well, never mind, it doesn't really matter. Ball thinks my position is
an "incoherent slop", he'll probably stick to that view no matter
what. I'll try to convey my position to you more clearly and you can
judge the matter for yourself.

>
>
> >> > 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.
>

Quite. Mind you, we don't get much acknowledgement of that point from
the other antis. Another point worth making is that there's not much
hope for change without some consumer initiative. I would have thought
these were the most important points to make in a discussion of
ethical vegetarianism. Unfortunately, we seem to spend most of our
time discussing who's a hypocrite and who's entitled to pass judgement
on others.

> > 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.

Yes, I know. So have I.

> You
> no doubt can't recall any of that. If I restate it you will forget it again.
>

No, I know what your position is.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > 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!
>

Jolly good. Glad you're entertained. This is an example of not
assuming good faith, which I want you to cut out if I'm going to make
further efforts to explain my position.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> 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.

Yes, of course I know that perfectly well. Yet for some reason you
appear to believe that I don't have the good sense to do that. I'm not
clear why.

The comment you're replying to was just an idle piece of sarcasm in
response to your cheap shot. Of course I wasn't suggesting that you
behave in your everyday life the way you behave on usenet. You do it
on usenet because it has a lower cost, the social sanctions people can
impose on you are not that costly.

> 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.

Delighted to hear it. I could have worked this out for myself,
actually.

> You strike me as someone who
> mumbles on about moral theories no matter who is listening.
>

Very interesting. Well, look, you can make speculations about my life
when I'm not on the internet if you like, but you might want to
consider the fact that you really don't know anything about it, any
more than I know anything about your life off the internet. So I'll be
taking any advice you give me about my social life with a pinch of
salt.