On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes - daily.
> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>>>>>> Yawn.
> >>>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >>>>>> reason.
> >>>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> >>>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
> >>>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> >>>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> >>>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> >>>> giving it up.
> >>> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
> >>> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
> >>> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
> >>> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
> >>> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
> >>> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
> >>>>> I don't think that you've shown
> >>>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> >>>>> should, but
> >>>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> >>>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> >>>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> >>>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> >>>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> >>>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> >>>> humans,
> >>> No, it's not.
> >> Yes, it is.
>
> >>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> >>>> bullshit.
> >>> Non sequitur.
> >> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
> >> your own preaching,
>
> > It does not.
>
> It certainly does, rupie.
>

What utterly palpable nonsense for so many reasons. But then, just
about everything you say is palpable nonsense for so many reasons.

It's palpable nonsense for at least three reasons:

(1) You have not established that any belief to which I have verbally
committed myself entails that anything I am doing is morally wrong.
(2) Even if, contrary to fact, you had established this, it would not
follow that I do not believe the propositions to which I have verbally
committed myself. I might be a hypocrite, as you yourself claim. You
don't seem to be able to make your mind up whether I'm hypocritical or
insincere.
(3) In any case, the original claim was that it would prove that the
beliefs to which I verbally committed myself were bullshit, which is
also obvious nonsense. Whether or not I actually believe them, or act
in accordance with them, has no bearing on their merits.

You really never do get tired of talking nonsense, do you?

> >> so the preaching is bullshit.
>
> > And this in any case would not follow.
>
> It does.

Of course it wouldn't follow. Even if, contrary to fact, you could
establish that I don't really believe it, or don't really act in
accordance with it, this would very obviously have no bearing on the
merits of the doctrine.