Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I buy products whose production caused animal deaths.

You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods
you buy caused animal deaths in their production. You
do this *UNNECESSARILY*.

It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive
fact like a car being blue. This is something you
*DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral
qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them
incriminating to you.

It's pretty obvious why you keep trying to downplay it
and minimize it, rupie. It is morally damning to your
claims. That word "merely" is clearly implied by your
tracks-covering attempt to call it "financial" support;
what you clearly are trying to call it is "MERELY
financial" support, and you just can't do it - I don't
let you.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I believe that there are

You believe in 'ar', rupie.


> If *you* think that there is an obligation to do everything possible
> to avoid buying products whose production caused some harm,

YOU are morally obliged to believe that, rupie, if you
believe in 'ar', as you profess to believe. But you
don't have any coherent moral beliefs about this crap
at all. It's nothing but feel-good-ism, and you draw
the line with no meaningful moral standards at all - it
is based purely on what is convenient and pleasant for you.


>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> And you *still* haven't demonstrated that anything I've said entails
> that I'm violating any rights.

Yes, rupie, I have. If you believe in animal 'rights',
as you profess to do, then you *must* at least believe
in their 'right' not to be killed casually and with no
consequences. But your behavior shows you don't really
believe that. You just believe in exalting yourself,
that's all. The only thing you do is to refrain from
eating animal bits, and that, as we have seen, is
nothing but an empty symbolic gesture based wholly on a
logical fallacy.


>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Why are they incoherent?

Already explained, time-wasting skirt-boy.


>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> No, they were a rational response

No, they were entirely irrational, as well as 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.
>>
>
> Drew - straight man
> Louis and Nona - straight couple, they recently had a baby
> Angie - straight girl
> Andrea - straight girl
> Siobhan - straight girl
> Mauro and Tully - straight couple
> David - straight man
> Rupert - straight man
> Tammy - straight girl
> Jackie - straight girl
> Narelle - straight girl

No one is going to take your word for the sexual
orientation of the boys. As I said: more girls.

'ar' is, fundamentally, a girlie thing. This is not
surprising, as it is based entirely on girlish
sentimentality about animals. Boys like you who plug
into 'ar' are very girlish.

It's also a very urban thing, hence the usual
designation of 'ar' passivists as clueless urbanites.
You just don't know ****-all about farming and animals.


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

No problem.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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.
>>
>
> Yeah, you're right

I know.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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!
>>
>
> Thanks

No problem.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, you say lots of things and

....and they're accurate.


>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Where are they?

In the newsgroups. Use Google.


>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yawn.

Unpersuasive.

You believe in 'ar' bullshit...except you don't; you
merely like to say you do, to exalt yourself. 'ar' is
entirely about its wishy-washy proponents' sense of ego.


>>>>>> 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, incoherent, 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.
>>
>
> Well, you know, I can't say I'm utterly fascinated by this
> issue

I'm surprised, given your ego and arrogance.


>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> All positions on this issue have some vagueness in their foundations.

"Some"? Shit-****ing-damn, rupie - there's NOTHING BUT
mushiness and vagueness to it.


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

Haw haw haw haw haw!