On Jul 12, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> 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're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively,
repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your
PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support.


> > You
> > do this *UNNECESSARILY*.
>
> Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense.

In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie.


> > 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?

Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of
animals. You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in
this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be
"respecting" animals' rights. For the same reason you [say that you]
don't buy any Persian rugs woven by Pakistani child slave labor, you
ought not consume any food whose production causes consequence-free
animal death on the massive scale that *YOUR* food does.


> > 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.