On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.googlegroups.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.

Yes.

> You
> do this *UNNECESSARILY*.
>

Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. If this is supposed to be such
a big deal, hadn't you better specify what counts as "unnecessary"?
Does anything count as "unnecessary"? Most people, if you asked them
"Is it necessary to go to the shops and buy food?", would probably say
"yes". You're setting higher standards for what counts as
"unnecessary" than would apply in a normal context. "Unnecessary" is a
vague term, like "reasonable". It is true that I could probably
organize my life so that I could live without buying the products of
commercial agriculture without actually starving to death, if I set
aside all other priorities I might have, including saving people from
dying in the Third World.

> 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.
>

Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? I make
some effort to reduce the impact my lifestyle has on animals and the
environment, and I make some effort to reduce suffering and death in
the Third World. I make significantly more efforts in these directions
than just about everyone else in my position, certainly including you.
I allow these goals to override other important goals, such as
pursuing a career in mathematical research. Is this really so
threatening to your self-esteem that you have to claim that I'm "self-
serving" and "amoral"? Who do you think you're kidding?

> 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.
>

I don't think you know what you mean by that.

> > 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.

Why? Argue the point. Why am I morally obliged to believe that given
what I've said?

> 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.
>

All right, suppose that's the case. It's different with you, is it?
You've arrived at your set of moral beliefs without being in any way
influenced by considerations of what's convenient and pleasant for
you? I mean, you call yourself a libertarian, presumably that makes
you feel good, gives you a sense of being more morally upright than
most of your fellow-citizens. Yet you still believe government ought
to exist and ought to enforce immigration restrictions, with no
particular coherent foundation for "drawing the line" in this place
that I can see. I follow all the moral rules that you follow, I
conduct myself a damn sight more decently when I'm debating on usenet,
and I do some other things as well, such as follow a vegan lifestyle,
engage in animal activism and civil liberties activism, and donate
significant amounts of time and money to charities like Oxfam and
UNICEF. Furthemore I allow my desire to help people in the Third World
influence my decisions about my career. You say all this is just to
make me "feel good about myself". Suppose for the sake of argument
that it is. So you think that entitles you to look down on me? Well,
you can do that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's just as
farcical as your calling me feminine and queer, or pretending you're
competent to judge my paper when you can't understand a word of it.
I'm happy to let everyone draw their own conclusions about the rubbish
you spout. If you get something out of spouting it, carry on.

> >>>>>> 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.

It's not exactly "casual". It's an unfortunate side-effect of
behaviour which we must engage in in order to feed ourselves.

You say over and over again: given what I've said, I must believe that
I am morally obliged not to support commercial agriculture. You're not
doing much by way of constructing an argument. Yes, I believe animals
have *some* rights. Everyone does, even Tibor Machan. He says he
doesn't, but when it comes down to it he thinks we may forcibly
intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat. That means he
thinks the cat has an enforceable right not to be harmed in that way.
You'll probably say you don't think animals have any rights, but when
it comes down to it you'd sometimes be prepared to use force to
prevent animals from being harmed. You'll have to do more by way of
specifying the difference between you and me which means I'm morally
obliged to believe that I should stop supporting commercial
agriculture and you're not.

> 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 do a lot more than just refrain from eating animal bits, and it's
not an empty gesture. Millions of animals are suffering terribly. Some
people care about that, even if you don't. The only way it's going to
change is if people make choices about their consumption habits. I
have made changes to my consumption habits and am encouraging others
to do the same. That is rational, given my goals. You somehow feel
threatened by the fact that I have these goals and am prepared to do
something about them, so you try to denigrate it by claiming that it's
just about "exalting myself". Well, blabber on all you like. Any
sensible person is going to recognize it as palpable rubbish, like all
your rubbish about mental illness (very ironic, that one), being
feminine and queer, and your absolutely hysterical attempts to
denigrate my mathematical ability, as if you could possibly have the
slightest clue about it.

> >>>>>> 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.
>

Right. So you've already explained why my animal ethics is incoherent
and your political philosophy isn't. Well, I guess you can rest on
your laurels, then. Unless of course your goal is to convince me.

> >>>>>> 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.
>

They were a good, calm, rational explanation of exactly who is
entirely irrational around here.

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>

Why exactly will people not take my word for the sexual orientation of
the boys? What motive do I have to lie? And if I was going to lie, why
wouldn't I also lie about the distribution of the sexes? And why would
I have mentioned the fact that the director is queer?

Could you say some more funny stuff, please, Ball? First of all, come
right out and say that Drew, Mauro, Louis, David, and myself are all
queer. That would really be a hoot. I might mention it to Louis, he's
got a Google Groups account, he might come here and comment on the
matter. And then could you explain exactly why I am claiming we are
all straight? It seems to me that if we were all queer, I would say
"Yes, actually, Ball, we are all queer, what of it?" Form some
conjectures about what motivates me to lie. This should be really
entertaining. And be sure to mention that all sensible observers are
going to agree with you.


> '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.
>

This utterly ignorant stereotype is very entertaining. Also, your
notion that this claim, if true, would have any relevance or interest
whatsoever is very entertaining.

> 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.
>

We quite often visit farms. Sometimes we take footage which we present
to veterinarians to be used as evidence in cruelty prosecutions. We
have a service whereby people can anonymously report instances of
animal cruelty over the phone. When we are following these up we need
to enlist the aid of animal welfare experts. We recently had contact
with a whistleblower from the kangaroo industry who was concerned
about the impact it was having on the population. Again, we had to get
scientists to help us look into the matter and also to look at the
quality control standards for kangaroo meat, a lot of the carcasses
have quite high levels of E. coli. The veterinarians and scientists
who help us out don't have any particular agenda to push. I was
actually requested to work in a piggery for a few weeks and take
footage which was to be used in a prosecution. We had been tipped off
by a whistleblower. I didn't end up doing that because I hadn't
finished my Ph.D. in time.

We have to know a fair bit about farming and animals to do what we
do.


> >>>> 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.
>

God, help me, you're a funny man, Ball. Could you elaborate on how
exactly you know this paper isn't going to win me the Fields medal? I
mean, I could post the proof of the Riemann hypothesis online and
you'd still say "Blabber, that's not going to win you the Fields
medal". Do a critique of my paper. This should be funny.

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

If they're accurate, then why I am howling with laughter?

> >>>>>>>>>> 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;

I see. That's certainly a very coherent view you've got there, Ball.

> 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.
>

You're surprised that I'm not particularly interested in your
pedantic, petty-minded evasions of the discussion by correcting my
English, incorrectly on this occasion? Well, Ball, if you were more in
touch with reailty you wouldn't find it so surprising.

> >>>>> 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.
>

Tell us about your political philosophy, Ball, and why that's less
mushy and vague than my position in animal ethics.

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