The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oups.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
Right.
|