On Jul 13, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 4:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oglegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >>>>>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >>>>>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >>>>>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >>>>>>>> belief in 'ar'.
> >>>>>>> I wrote to Derek:
> >>>>>>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
> >>>>>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
> >>>>> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
> >>>> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
> >>>> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
> >>> I'm afraid
> >> We know.
>
> >>>>>>> Inflicting any more
> >>>>>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >>>>>>> currently being violated.
> >>>>>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
> >>>>> Not by me. On my behalf.'
> >>>> No,
>
> > Let's go back up here again. Never mind about whether I "participate
> > in the process"
>
> No, we DO pay attention to that, skirt-boy, because it
> is the basic problem with your pose; the proof that you
> are a lying hypocrite if you claim to believe in 'ar',
> as you do claim.

Your evidence for that being the statements I made to Derek. So
somehow those statements combined with my behaviour show that I am a
lying hypocrite. I eagerly await further elaboration on this matter.

> It is what demolishes your attempt at
> downplaying and minimizing your role. It is what shows
> that you are a regular, active participant in an
> on-going process from which you *could*, if you had any
> conscience, withdraw. But you choose, despite the
> mountains of accumulated evidence regarding the
> lethality of crop agriculture, to keep right on
> participating.
>

Yes, and... ?

> You are not passive in this process, rupie. You are an
> active participant, who claims to know what goes on.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> you participate in the process, skirt-boy.
>
> >>> No, I don't.
> >> Yes, you do. Actively, knowingly, repeatedly, and
> >> unnecessarily. Proved.
>
> >>>> You've tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
> >>>> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.
> >>> "Financial support" is a correct description.
> >> It is not, rupie. It's a responsibility-shirking
> >> dodge, as has been proved. It's an attempt to
> >> minimize, invalidly and unethically, the depth and
> >> extent of your involvement in animal slaughter. You
> >> *KNOW*, you ****, that it is not "mere" financial
> >> support. You also know, you smelly ****, that although
> >> you don't explicitly use the word "mere", it is tightly
> >> woven into the meaning of "financial support".
>
> > No. I don't know this.
>
> Yes, you do know it, rupie, you smarmy liar, because
> *I* know it, and I have told you for months.

Yes, but I don't accept without question everything you say,
particularly when you constantly assert as fact ludicrous nonsense
which I know to be false.

> It is
> brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
> downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
> financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
> participation.

It is not obvious to me, and I would have thought I would have more
insight than you into what I intended to mean by the phrase.

> I have told you, you smelly ****, that
> it is not as if entries just appear, passively, in your
> bank account; no, you ACTIVELY go to the shops and
> choose the foods and fork over the money for them.

This is not in contention.

> You
> know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
> over the money, you are buying animal death.

Yes, that's right. I'm financially supporting processes that cause
animal death. That's what I said. But for some reason the way I say it
causes you to burst a blood vessel.

> You can't
> escape this undeniable fact, rupie - not as long as you
> participate here, and I'm around to keep pounding it
> into you.
>
> >> You are trying, without success, to minimize the extent of
> >> your complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>
> And your attempt at minimizing and downplaying will
> *always* fail, rupie.
>
> >>>> It is not
> >>>> "mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
> >>>> repeated, fully aware participation.
> >>>> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
> >>>> ****. It's active participation in a process, with
> >>>> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
> >>>> financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.
> >>> Blah blah blah...
> >> Concession noted.
>
> > Loss of contact with reality
>
> Yours, rupie. You fantasize that you are fooling
> anyone with this "merely financial" bullshit. Most of
> all, it's clear you're trying to fool yourself. I
> don't let you.
>

You say tomahto, I say tomato. It just so happens that the objections
you have to the way I choose to describe the situation are obscure to
me. Your fantasy that I was somehow making a "concession" to you was
very amusing. I buy food, the production of this food involved animals
dying. That is not in dispute. As far as I'm concerned, when I say
that I "financially support" processes that kill animals I am saying
the same thing. You don't like that way of putting it. Whatever. You
want to try and convince me that I have made statements that logically
entail that what I am doing is wrong. Keep going if you feel so
inclined.


>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
> >>>>>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >>>>>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
> >>>>>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> >>>>>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
> >>>>> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
> >>>> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
> >>>> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
> >>>> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
> >>>> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
> >>>> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
> >>>> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
> >>> We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
> >>> animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
> >>> avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.
> >> LISTEN, you skinny girlish cocksucker: if someone
> >> credibly told you that all "Persian" rugs were woven by
> >> Pakistani child slave labor, how many would you buy?
>
> > None.
>
> Bullshit. Based on your excuse-making for the
> blood-drenched vegetables you buy, rupie, you might as
> well buy as many rugs as you would like to have,
> because you could rationalize it in exactly the same
> way. In fact, you could rationalize it even better,
> rupie, because the Pakistani slave child rug weavers
> aren't killed - they always have the hope of escaping
> or being freed. A nest of rodents chopped to bits so
> you, skirt-boy rupie, can eat, have lost everything.
>

There are quite a few important differences, the most notable one
being the much greater difficulty involved in not buying the products
of commercial agriculture.

> You have no coherent way to draw the line that (you
> say) puts the Pakistani slave children within the scope
> of your moral concern, while the field animals chopped
> to bits so you can eat remain outside the scope.
> Unless...could it be...SPECIESISM? Yes, that must be it.
>

Species is not a relevant consideration, no.

> >>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >>>>>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
> >>>>>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >>>>>> reasonable.
> >>>>> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> >>>>> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
> >>>> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
> >>> No, not at all.
> >> Yes, at all, you skinny feminine cocksucker.
>
> > It really is a joke.
>
> You sure are, you skinny feminine clueless urbanite
> cocksucker.
>

Well, I'm quite sure you feel that way, and I can assure you the
feeling is mutual. You are the most ludicrous clown I have ever
encountered.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> All deontologists hold that
> >>>>>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >>>>>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >>>>>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
> >>>>>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >>>>>>> AR. Okay, fine.
> >>>>>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >>>>>> what you believe.
> >>>>> I've said quite a lot about it.
> >>>> Then you deny it.
> >>> Nope.
> >> Yep.
>
> >>>> You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.
> >>> Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
> >>> the amount of suffering in the world like me
> >> You don't do a ****ing thing to reduce suffering, you
> >> lying shitbag.
>
> > Don't you ever get tired of making up rubbish about things you don't
> > know anything about?
>
> I know that you don't _do_ anything, rupie, apart from
> empty blabber. You are not an "activist" in any way.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not an activist, I don't do anything to reduce
suffering, I don't do maths, I'm going to be a career telemarketer,
I'm queer, I'm psychotic, blah blah blah.... I wonder if you actually
expect anyone to take this stuff seriously.