On Jul 31, 6:30 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> Derek wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
> >>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
> >>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
> >>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
> >>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
> >>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
> >>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
> >>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
> >>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
> >>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
> >>>>>>> WAS.
> >>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
> >>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
> >>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
> >>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
> >>> no longer believes animals have rights.
> >>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
> >>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
> >>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
> >>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
> >>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
> >>>>>> he describes.
> >>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
> >>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
> >>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
> >>>> proposition of animal rights.
> >>>> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
> >>>> and
> >>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
> >>>> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
> >>>> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
> >>>> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
> >>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
> >>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
> >>>> with rights is a laugh."
> >>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.
> >> Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
> >> said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
> >> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
> >> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
> >> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
> > don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
> > as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
> > explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights.
>
> Correct.
>
> > And he also
> > thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
> > you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture. This is a crucial
> > part of his case that I am a hypocrite. So this disagreement of yours
> > with him is quite important. If you are right, then he has no case
> > that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.
>
> I don't believe that animals in crop fields hold rights against farmers,
> I believe that domestic animals hold specific rights against their
> caretakers, while Mr Ball believes that those are strictly obligations
> that those people owe, not rights held by the animals. In my view one
> implies the other.
>
> "ARAs" on the other hand don't define the limitations of their alleged
> beliefs clearly enough to know what they mean,

It's just as well-defined as your own position.

I believe that we should grant nonhuman animals the same rights as
humans with similar cognitive capacities, and we should give nonhuman
animals the same consideration in any given situation which we would
give to humans with similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
circumstances.

> but if you claim to
> believe animals have rights in the sense that humans do, then he's
> right, you must pull up stakes and get out of the commercial/industrial
> food system.

I said what I believe above, and I'm not currently convinced that it
requires me to do that.