On Jul 13, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No, it isn't, rupie.
>

Yes, there there now. Have you ever thought about having a chat with a
psychiatrist?

> > It looks like financial
> > support to me.
>
> No, it doesn't, rupie. It does not look like "MERELY financial"
> support,

But it does look like financial support...

> because I have demonstrated to you that it's something much
> more, something far more morally damning to your moral standing.
>

What exactly have you demonstrated?

> > But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important
> > issue.
>
> That's another lie, rupie. You know that your active, repeated, fully
> aware participation - something much greater than "MERELY financial"
> support - completely guts your claim to virtue. That's the reason you
> keep desperately trying to minimize, to downplay your role. You will
> not succeed, rupie.
>

Well, no, I don't know that. I mean, when you spout nonsense such as
me being queer, I often wonder if you really believe it, but I usually
do you the courtesy of assuming you mean what you say. How, exactly,
could it be that you are virtuous and I am not, when I follow all the
moral rules that you do and then some?

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

Well, that must be very nice for you. But what I was asking is, do you
think there is any meaningful sense to the word "necessary", and if
so, what is it?

> > > > > 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.
>
> You posture. It's nothing but posturing. It's arrogance run rampant.
>

Well, no sensible person is going to form that view. No-one else finds
me arrogant or accuses me of "posturing". This view you have that
anyone who changes their diet for moral reasons is just "posturing"
and doing it to feed their ego is the product of totally irrational,
distorted thinking. It says a lot more about you than about anyone
else. And all this talk about arrogance is utterly absurd. Are you
really unaware of how extraordinarily arrogant your behaviour is?

> > I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort
> > to reduce my contribution to
>
> **** off, you pompous grandstanding shitbag. You haven't "reduced"
> anything. You're merely not putting animal bits in your greasy greedy
> mouth, and patting yourself on the back for it. You have not done
> anything virtuous by that choice, shitbag.
>

Then why does it bother you so much?

You haven't given any sensible reason why going vegan is not one
rational thing to do with respect to the goal of reducing your
contribution to animal suffering. You don't have that goal, or at
least not so strongly as to override your other goals, fine, but why
does it bother you so much that other people make different decisions?
You seem to have this idea that I've given you some cause for personal
annoyance simply because I express the view that reducing animal
suffering is a worthy goal and going vegan is one rational strategy
for pursuing that goal. You may not agree with this view - you haven't
made it very clear why - but even so, what of it? You think that that
alone is a reason for you to be annoyed with me, in the context of the
way you behave? Seems to me there's a bit of personal insecurity going
on here.

> > > 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?
>
> You do not "respect" animal rights, rupie.

I don't respect the rights of animals as you for some reason think I
ought to conceive them. What of it?