On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, this point is lost on me, I'm afraid. It looks like financial
support to me. But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important
issue.

> > > You
> > > do this *UNNECESSARILY*.
>
> > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense.
>
> In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie.
>

You reckon? There's no meaningful sense in which it's necessary to buy
food from the shops?

> > > 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.

I don't posture. I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort
to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. I don't go around
advertising this fact to the world, but I don't mind talking about it
with anyone who asks. For some reason this upsets you and you start
haranguing me. I am respecting the rights which I actually believe
animals to have, yes. I am not respecting the rights which for some
reason you think I ought to believe that animals have. Neither are you
or anyone else.

> You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in
> this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be
> "respecting" animals' rights.

Can you give an actual quote of a claim I've made which it
contradicts?

> 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.
>

The sacrifice involved in not buying Persian rugs is trivial.

>
>
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -