"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter
>> >> >> > Singer.
>> >> >> > There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.
>>
>> >> >> Peter Singer admits that he is not sure if such a position can even
>> >> >> exist
>> >> >> outside a discussion hall, if I recall correctly. That is my litmus
>> >> >> test
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the validity of a theory.
>>
>> >> > Well, that's interesting, can you give me a citation?
>>
>> >> I got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary
>> >> Francione
>> >> on
>> >> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>>
>> > Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?
>>
>> Looking through my browsing history I can't find where I read that but I
>> came across this quote from Gary Francione's website,
>>
>> "In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices
>> Matter
>> (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be "conscientious
>> omnivores" and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to
>> eat
>> only animals who have been "humanely" raised and killed.
>>
>> Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or
>> vegetarian
>> because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to
>> killing
>> and eating animals for food and he never has.
>>
>> If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the October
>> issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer's own words: "I
>> think
>> people are mistaken if they think I've watered down that underlying
>> ethical
>> argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal
>> Liberation
>> I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the
>> argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at
>> Animal Liberation, they won't find that argument."
>>
>> Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory
>> farming. Once we make the process more "humane," and address the issues
>> of
>> suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back
>> to
>> eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a mistake to be "too fanatical
>> about
>> insisting on a purely vegan life." Asked about his own veganism, he
>> responds: "Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure." "
>>
>> That's not the quote I was referring to, but I thought this was as good a
>> spot as any to stick it in for your reaction. It certainly makes it
>> plausible that he would make such a statement. In any case it was a quote
>> attributed to him, you can rely on it, fwiw, anyway, it's not that
>> important
>> to me, I have no particular investment in the ideas of any of these
>> people.
>> I have lived long enough and thought long and hard enough about these
>> issues
>> that I do not subordinate my own ideas to any others'.
>>
>
> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a completely different
> issue.

It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are closely linked. If he
believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even laudable under the right
circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the validity of equal
consideration.

You seemed to be saying he thought there was no practicable
> ethical framework that was consistent with equal consideration. I see
> no evidence for that at all.

He is quoted as expressing doubt that such an ideal was reachable, but I
can't find the reference. You can choose to disbelieve me if you like, I
don't care, it's utterly unimportant what Singer said or didn't say, I was
merely relating something I thought might interest you.

>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice? Do
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.
>>
>> I'd add here, Peter Singer's ideas are quite far removed from the
>> deontological ideas of most AR advocates,
>>
>
> Yes, I know. But DeGrazia is an interesting example of a non-
> utilitarian theorist who doesn't hold a strict rights view. Maybe you
> should have a look at the rest of the book.

Forget DeGrazia's book, it's turgid drivel I would not waste my time with.
If you can't precis his ideas well enough for a discussion then you can
leave them unexpressed.

>> >> >> Peter Singer is not opposed to animal use per se, so I'm not sure
>> >> >> why
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> actually consider him an example of your way of thinking.
>>
>> >> > Peter Singer was my first major influence in my thinking about
>> >> > animal
>> >> > ethics, and he's still an important influence, the main difference
>> >> > is
>> >> > that I am not a utilitarian.
>>
>> >> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in
>> >> certain
>> >> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian
>> >> viewpoint.
>>
>> > The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
>> > really not very good evidence that I am a utilitarian.
>>
>> Actually it is excellent evidence of exactly that. A deontologist would
>> constantly refer to the fundamental rights of animals, not to the harmful
>> consequences of human actions.
>>
>
> An absolutist rights position and a purely utilitarian position are
> not the only options.

I didn't say they were.

[..]

>> >> > In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them
>> >> > any
>> >> > moral consideration.
>>
>> >> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>>
>> > Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
>> > interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.
>>
>> I would question that statement, every organism that can be called a
>> "being"
>> has interests, their survival strategies verify this, the real question
>> is
>> to what extent they are aware of their own interests. That leads to the
>> issue of sentience, and I think it obvious that it's not something that
>> can
>> simply be said to exist or not, it exists in infinite degrees. Starting
>> with
>> the most basic of single-celled organisms moving through the animal
>> kingdom
>> through insects, fish and other animal life, then mammals, apes, and
>> finally
>> man, you have a scale of sentience, described by the height of awareness
>> each species has of their own interests. I would further submit that
>> humans'
>> level of awareness is far higher in this regard than any other animal.
>> The
>> way that we all view and act towards animals validates this view as
>> accurate.
>>
>
> I don't agree that insentient beings have interests.

You have failed to read what I said for comprehension. There aren't
"insentient" vs "sentient" beings, every "being" has some degree of
sentience.

DeGrazia has a
> discussion of this issue. It's true that the type of awareness you
> have and your degree of cognitive complexity will make a difference to
> what sort of interests you have. This all fits perfectly well into the
> framework of equal consideration. You should read the rest of
> DeGrazia's book, he goes into issues like this in detail.

To hell with your pointers to read DeGrazia's book Rupert, read it again
yourself until you grasp it well enough to transmit the ideas in a
discussion. I'm not some goddamned undergrad student you're giving
assignments to.

The fact that you seem totally enraptured with his ideas but can't elucidate
on a single one of them in your own words just reinforces what I thought of
the book, it's incomprehensible rubbish without a shred of a ring of truth
to any of it.

[..]
>>
>> >> >> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > We give them a lot more protection.
>>
>> >> In some cases we do, not always.
>>
>> > Would you like to give an example?
>>
>> Some people cherish and protect beloved pets as if they were their own
>> children. Some endangered species are protected to the point where any
>> human
>> threatening one of them can be shot on sight, such as white rhinos.
>>
>
> It's still nothing like the level of protection we give to all humans,
> no matter how cognitively impaired.

Of course it is, nothing could be a a higher level of protection than
shooting someone on sight for threatening that being, and some people think
more of their poodles than they do of their own children, or at least would
choose to save their pets if forced to choose between their pet and a
stranger in a life or death situation.


>> >> >> >That's the point.
>> >> >> > Why?
>>
>> >> >> Because we choose to, because they're like us. Because "There but
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> grace of God go I."
>>
>> >> > That thought is equally valid for nonhuman animals.
>>
>> >> Ah, but it's not.
>>
>> > Would you like to elaborate?
>>
>> Simply that "I" (i.e. we, us) could not be "there" because we *are*
>> humans,
>> not members of the other species.
>
> You might as well say that I can't empathize with Negroes because I'm
> not a Negro. Or, for that matter, that I can't empathize with
> radically cognitively impaired humans because I'm not radically
> cognitively impaired.

You're missing the point I was making, you can't be Caucasian and ever be a
Negro, but anyone can become radically impaired in a heartbeat. We are
highly empathetic beings, so we can empathize with a squirrel or a housefly,
that does not mean we all fall into a morass of moral confusion, and that is
precisely what DeGrazia et al are preaching, nothing less.

"Rupert" > wrote
> Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
> could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
> from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
> how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.

That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's view
reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes "too
much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."

Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty peice
of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
university.

On Jun 12, 3:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter
> >> >> >> > Singer.
> >> >> >> > There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.
>
> >> >> >> Peter Singer admits that he is not sure if such a position can even
> >> >> >> exist
> >> >> >> outside a discussion hall, if I recall correctly. That is my litmus
> >> >> >> test
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> the validity of a theory.
>
> >> >> > Well, that's interesting, can you give me a citation?
>
> >> >> I got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary
> >> >> Francione
> >> >> on
> >> >> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>
> >> > Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?
>
> >> Looking through my browsing history I can't find where I read that but I
> >> came across this quote from Gary Francione's website,
>
> >> "In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices
> >> Matter
> >> (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be "conscientious
> >> omnivores" and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to
> >> eat
> >> only animals who have been "humanely" raised and killed.
>
> >> Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or
> >> vegetarian
> >> because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to
> >> killing
> >> and eating animals for food and he never has.
>
> >> If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the October
> >> issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer's own words: "I
> >> think
> >> people are mistaken if they think I've watered down that underlying
> >> ethical
> >> argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal
> >> Liberation
> >> I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the
> >> argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at
> >> Animal Liberation, they won't find that argument."
>
> >> Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory
> >> farming. Once we make the process more "humane," and address the issues
> >> of
> >> suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back
> >> to
> >> eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a mistake to be "too fanatical
> >> about
> >> insisting on a purely vegan life." Asked about his own veganism, he
> >> responds: "Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure." "
>
> >> That's not the quote I was referring to, but I thought this was as good a
> >> spot as any to stick it in for your reaction. It certainly makes it
> >> plausible that he would make such a statement. In any case it was a quote
> >> attributed to him, you can rely on it, fwiw, anyway, it's not that
> >> important
> >> to me, I have no particular investment in the ideas of any of these
> >> people.
> >> I have lived long enough and thought long and hard enough about these
> >> issues
> >> that I do not subordinate my own ideas to any others'.
>
> > Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a completely different
> > issue.
>
> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are closely linked. If he
> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even laudable under the right
> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the validity of equal
> consideration.
>

No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal consideration and he's a
strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. Singer's views are
an example of a theory that's consistent with equal consideration.


> You seemed to be saying he thought there was no practicable
>
> > ethical framework that was consistent with equal consideration. I see
> > no evidence for that at all.
>
> He is quoted as expressing doubt that such an ideal was reachable, but I
> can't find the reference. You can choose to disbelieve me if you like, I
> don't care, it's utterly unimportant what Singer said or didn't say, I was
> merely relating something I thought might interest you.
>

Well, he might say it, but that would be more to do with his views
about our obligations to the poor than his views about animals. And it
would be a point that has a bearing on his theory of preference
utilitarianism, but not on other theories which are consistent with
equal consideration.

>
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice? Do
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.
>
> >> I'd add here, Peter Singer's ideas are quite far removed from the
> >> deontological ideas of most AR advocates,
>
> > Yes, I know. But DeGrazia is an interesting example of a non-
> > utilitarian theorist who doesn't hold a strict rights view. Maybe you
> > should have a look at the rest of the book.
>
> Forget DeGrazia's book, it's turgid drivel I would not waste my time with.
> If you can't precis his ideas well enough for a discussion then you can
> leave them unexpressed.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> Peter Singer is not opposed to animal use per se, so I'm not sure
> >> >> >> why
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> actually consider him an example of your way of thinking.
>
> >> >> > Peter Singer was my first major influence in my thinking about
> >> >> > animal
> >> >> > ethics, and he's still an important influence, the main difference
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > that I am not a utilitarian.
>
> >> >> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in
> >> >> certain
> >> >> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian
> >> >> viewpoint.
>
> >> > The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
> >> > really not very good evidence that I am a utilitarian.
>
> >> Actually it is excellent evidence of exactly that. A deontologist would
> >> constantly refer to the fundamental rights of animals, not to the harmful
> >> consequences of human actions.
>
> > An absolutist rights position and a purely utilitarian position are
> > not the only options.
>
> I didn't say they were.
>

Once it is pointed out that they are not, the argument you were making
is shown to be very weak.

> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them
> >> >> > any
> >> >> > moral consideration.
>
> >> >> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>
> >> > Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
> >> > interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.
>
> >> I would question that statement, every organism that can be called a
> >> "being"
> >> has interests, their survival strategies verify this, the real question
> >> is
> >> to what extent they are aware of their own interests. That leads to the
> >> issue of sentience, and I think it obvious that it's not something that
> >> can
> >> simply be said to exist or not, it exists in infinite degrees. Starting
> >> with
> >> the most basic of single-celled organisms moving through the animal
> >> kingdom
> >> through insects, fish and other animal life, then mammals, apes, and
> >> finally
> >> man, you have a scale of sentience, described by the height of awareness
> >> each species has of their own interests. I would further submit that
> >> humans'
> >> level of awareness is far higher in this regard than any other animal.
> >> The
> >> way that we all view and act towards animals validates this view as
> >> accurate.
>
> > I don't agree that insentient beings have interests.
>
> You have failed to read what I said for comprehension. There aren't
> "insentient" vs "sentient" beings, every "being" has some degree of
> sentience.
>

Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of "sentience"
to me.

> DeGrazia has a
>
> > discussion of this issue. It's true that the type of awareness you
> > have and your degree of cognitive complexity will make a difference to
> > what sort of interests you have. This all fits perfectly well into the
> > framework of equal consideration. You should read the rest of
> > DeGrazia's book, he goes into issues like this in detail.
>
> To hell with your pointers to read DeGrazia's book Rupert, read it again
> yourself until you grasp it well enough to transmit the ideas in a
> discussion. I'm not some goddamned undergrad student you're giving
> assignments to.
>

Keep your hair on. It is actually a good book and worth reading,
whatever you might think. I would recommend it to anyone who was
interested in these issues.

> The fact that you seem totally enraptured with his ideas but can't elucidate
> on a single one of them in your own words just reinforces what I thought of
> the book, it's incomprehensible rubbish without a shred of a ring of truth
> to any of it.
>

I have elucidated them. I gave a talk about these ideas at a
conference once, you can read that talk in the same place you read my
other one. I have a good grasp of these ideas and am good at conveying
them to others, regardless of whether or not you understand them, but
it is best for someone to have a look at the book himself.

> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.
>
> >> >> > We give them a lot more protection.
>
> >> >> In some cases we do, not always.
>
> >> > Would you like to give an example?
>
> >> Some people cherish and protect beloved pets as if they were their own
> >> children. Some endangered species are protected to the point where any
> >> human
> >> threatening one of them can be shot on sight, such as white rhinos.
>
> > It's still nothing like the level of protection we give to all humans,
> > no matter how cognitively impaired.
>
> Of course it is, nothing could be a a higher level of protection than
> shooting someone on sight for threatening that being, and some people think
> more of their poodles than they do of their own children, or at least would
> choose to save their pets if forced to choose between their pet and a
> stranger in a life or death situation.
>

Not that many people. No nonhuman animal has anything like to the
level of legal protection given to all human beings.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >That's the point.
> >> >> >> > Why?
>
> >> >> >> Because we choose to, because they're like us. Because "There but
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> grace of God go I."
>
> >> >> > That thought is equally valid for nonhuman animals.
>
> >> >> Ah, but it's not.
>
> >> > Would you like to elaborate?
>
> >> Simply that "I" (i.e. we, us) could not be "there" because we *are*
> >> humans,
> >> not members of the other species.
>
> > You might as well say that I can't empathize with Negroes because I'm
> > not a Negro. Or, for that matter, that I can't empathize with
> > radically cognitively impaired humans because I'm not radically
> > cognitively impaired.
>
> You're missing the point I was making, you can't be Caucasian and ever be a
> Negro,

But I can still say "There but for the grace of God go I". So why
can't I say that about a nonhuman animal?

> but anyone can become radically impaired in a heartbeat. We are
> highly empathetic beings, so we can empathize with a squirrel or a housefly,
> that does not mean we all fall into a morass of moral confusion, and that is
> precisely what DeGrazia et al are preaching, nothing less.

You've given no evidence of moral confusion.

On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's view
> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes "too
> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty peice
> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
> university.

It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
That doesn't mean that it entails utilitarianism. Francione might well
agree with what I'm saying as far as the environmental argument and
the argument from fairness of food distribution go, of course he can't
agree with it as far as the argument from impact on animals goes.

On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's view
> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes "too
> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty peice
> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
> university.

By the way, I was aware that Francione used to post here, but I
haven't been able to find any messages from him in the Google
archives. Does that mean he's deleted them all? I'd be interested in
reading what he had to say.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 12, 3:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> > Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter
>> >> >> >> > Singer.
>> >> >> >> > There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.
>>
>> >> >> >> Peter Singer admits that he is not sure if such a position can
>> >> >> >> even
>> >> >> >> exist
>> >> >> >> outside a discussion hall, if I recall correctly. That is my
>> >> >> >> litmus
>> >> >> >> test
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> the validity of a theory.
>>
>> >> >> > Well, that's interesting, can you give me a citation?
>>
>> >> >> I got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary
>> >> >> Francione
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>>
>> >> > Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?
>>
>> >> Looking through my browsing history I can't find where I read that but
>> >> I
>> >> came across this quote from Gary Francione's website,
>>
>> >> "In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices
>> >> Matter
>> >> (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be
>> >> "conscientious
>> >> omnivores" and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to
>> >> eat
>> >> only animals who have been "humanely" raised and killed.
>>
>> >> Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or
>> >> vegetarian
>> >> because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to
>> >> killing
>> >> and eating animals for food and he never has.
>>
>> >> If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the
>> >> October
>> >> issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer's own words: "I
>> >> think
>> >> people are mistaken if they think I've watered down that underlying
>> >> ethical
>> >> argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal
>> >> Liberation
>> >> I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the
>> >> argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look
>> >> at
>> >> Animal Liberation, they won't find that argument."
>>
>> >> Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of
>> >> factory
>> >> farming. Once we make the process more "humane," and address the
>> >> issues
>> >> of
>> >> suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go
>> >> back
>> >> to
>> >> eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a mistake to be "too fanatical
>> >> about
>> >> insisting on a purely vegan life." Asked about his own veganism, he
>> >> responds: "Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure." "
>>
>> >> That's not the quote I was referring to, but I thought this was as
>> >> good a
>> >> spot as any to stick it in for your reaction. It certainly makes it
>> >> plausible that he would make such a statement. In any case it was a
>> >> quote
>> >> attributed to him, you can rely on it, fwiw, anyway, it's not that
>> >> important
>> >> to me, I have no particular investment in the ideas of any of these
>> >> people.
>> >> I have lived long enough and thought long and hard enough about these
>> >> issues
>> >> that I do not subordinate my own ideas to any others'.
>>
>> > Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a completely different
>> > issue.
>>
>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are closely linked. If
>> he
>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even laudable under the right
>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the validity of equal
>> consideration.
>>
>
> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal consideration and he's a
> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. Singer's views are
> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal consideration.

So you consider raising livestock to be an example of equal consideration?
How bizarre.

>> You seemed to be saying he thought there was no practicable
>>
>> > ethical framework that was consistent with equal consideration. I see
>> > no evidence for that at all.
>>
>> He is quoted as expressing doubt that such an ideal was reachable, but I
>> can't find the reference. You can choose to disbelieve me if you like, I
>> don't care, it's utterly unimportant what Singer said or didn't say, I
>> was
>> merely relating something I thought might interest you.
>>
>
> Well, he might say it, but that would be more to do with his views
> about our obligations to the poor than his views about animals. And it
> would be a point that has a bearing on his theory of preference
> utilitarianism, but not on other theories which are consistent with
> equal consideration.

???

>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> > Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice?
>> >> >> >> > Do
>> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> > know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.
>>
>> >> I'd add here, Peter Singer's ideas are quite far removed from the
>> >> deontological ideas of most AR advocates,
>>
>> > Yes, I know. But DeGrazia is an interesting example of a non-
>> > utilitarian theorist who doesn't hold a strict rights view. Maybe you
>> > should have a look at the rest of the book.
>>
>> Forget DeGrazia's book, it's turgid drivel I would not waste my time
>> with.
>> If you can't precis his ideas well enough for a discussion then you can
>> leave them unexpressed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> Peter Singer is not opposed to animal use per se, so I'm not
>> >> >> >> sure
>> >> >> >> why
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> actually consider him an example of your way of thinking.
>>
>> >> >> > Peter Singer was my first major influence in my thinking about
>> >> >> > animal
>> >> >> > ethics, and he's still an important influence, the main
>> >> >> > difference
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > that I am not a utilitarian.
>>
>> >> >> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in
>> >> >> certain
>> >> >> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian
>> >> >> viewpoint.
>>
>> >> > The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
>> >> > really not very good evidence that I am a utilitarian.
>>
>> >> Actually it is excellent evidence of exactly that. A deontologist
>> >> would
>> >> constantly refer to the fundamental rights of animals, not to the
>> >> harmful
>> >> consequences of human actions.
>>
>> > An absolutist rights position and a purely utilitarian position are
>> > not the only options.
>>
>> I didn't say they were.
>>
>
> Once it is pointed out that they are not, the argument you were making
> is shown to be very weak.


>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them
>> >> >> > any
>> >> >> > moral consideration.
>>
>> >> >> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>>
>> >> > Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
>> >> > interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.
>>
>> >> I would question that statement, every organism that can be called a
>> >> "being"
>> >> has interests, their survival strategies verify this, the real
>> >> question
>> >> is
>> >> to what extent they are aware of their own interests. That leads to
>> >> the
>> >> issue of sentience, and I think it obvious that it's not something
>> >> that
>> >> can
>> >> simply be said to exist or not, it exists in infinite degrees.
>> >> Starting
>> >> with
>> >> the most basic of single-celled organisms moving through the animal
>> >> kingdom
>> >> through insects, fish and other animal life, then mammals, apes, and
>> >> finally
>> >> man, you have a scale of sentience, described by the height of
>> >> awareness
>> >> each species has of their own interests. I would further submit that
>> >> humans'
>> >> level of awareness is far higher in this regard than any other animal.
>> >> The
>> >> way that we all view and act towards animals validates this view as
>> >> accurate.
>>
>> > I don't agree that insentient beings have interests.
>>
>> You have failed to read what I said for comprehension. There aren't
>> "insentient" vs "sentient" beings, every "being" has some degree of
>> sentience.
>>
>
> Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of "sentience"
> to me.

It means the ability to experience sensations, like pain. Presumably if a
being can feel pain then you must advocate that we ought to take that into
consideration when dealing with it. Does a honey bee feel pain?

>> DeGrazia has a
>>
>> > discussion of this issue. It's true that the type of awareness you
>> > have and your degree of cognitive complexity will make a difference to
>> > what sort of interests you have. This all fits perfectly well into the
>> > framework of equal consideration. You should read the rest of
>> > DeGrazia's book, he goes into issues like this in detail.
>>
>> To hell with your pointers to read DeGrazia's book Rupert, read it again
>> yourself until you grasp it well enough to transmit the ideas in a
>> discussion. I'm not some goddamned undergrad student you're giving
>> assignments to.
>>
>
> Keep your hair on. It is actually a good book and worth reading,
> whatever you might think. I would recommend it to anyone who was
> interested in these issues.

I could hardly be less interested in your book recommendations at this
point. You need to stop substituting them for rational discourse.

>
>> The fact that you seem totally enraptured with his ideas but can't
>> elucidate
>> on a single one of them in your own words just reinforces what I thought
>> of
>> the book, it's incomprehensible rubbish without a shred of a ring of
>> truth
>> to any of it.
>>
>
> I have elucidated them.

Not here, not in any depth.

> I gave a talk about these ideas at a
> conference once, you can read that talk in the same place you read my
> other one.

You may have expressed these ideas in a coherent manner at some point, but
you aren't doing it now.

> I have a good grasp of these ideas and am good at conveying
> them to others, regardless of whether or not you understand them, but
> it is best for someone to have a look at the book himself.

If I wanted to read it in his book I would. I have concluded on the evidence
I have so far that it's nonsense, and I've made a number of cogent arguments
which support that view. If you want to change that perception of mine then
*you* do it.

[..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many
>> >> animals.
>>
>> >> >> > We give them a lot more protection.
>>
>> >> >> In some cases we do, not always.
>>
>> >> > Would you like to give an example?
>>
>> >> Some people cherish and protect beloved pets as if they were their own
>> >> children. Some endangered species are protected to the point where any
>> >> human
>> >> threatening one of them can be shot on sight, such as white rhinos.
>>
>> > It's still nothing like the level of protection we give to all humans,
>> > no matter how cognitively impaired.
>>
>> Of course it is, nothing could be a a higher level of protection than
>> shooting someone on sight for threatening that being, and some people
>> think
>> more of their poodles than they do of their own children, or at least
>> would
>> choose to save their pets if forced to choose between their pet and a
>> stranger in a life or death situation.
>>
>
> Not that many people.

You don't know that, of the people I've known, many have felt this way.

> No nonhuman animal has anything like to the
> level of legal protection given to all human beings.

That's simply not true, as I demonstrated above. Even if it were, so what?
Based on the biocentric view, humans are the most deserving of protection
because they have by far the highest level of sentience of all animals.


> >> >> >That's the point.
>> >> >> >> > Why?
>>
>> >> >> >> Because we choose to, because they're like us. Because "There
>> >> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> grace of God go I."
>>
>> >> >> > That thought is equally valid for nonhuman animals.
>>
>> >> >> Ah, but it's not.
>>
>> >> > Would you like to elaborate?
>>
>> >> Simply that "I" (i.e. we, us) could not be "there" because we *are*
>> >> humans,
>> >> not members of the other species.
>>
>> > You might as well say that I can't empathize with Negroes because I'm
>> > not a Negro. Or, for that matter, that I can't empathize with
>> > radically cognitively impaired humans because I'm not radically
>> > cognitively impaired.
>>
>> You're missing the point I was making, you can't be Caucasian and ever be
>> a
>> Negro,
>
> But I can still say "There but for the grace of God go I". So why
> can't I say that about a nonhuman animal?
>
>> but anyone can become radically impaired in a heartbeat. We are
>> highly empathetic beings, so we can empathize with a squirrel or a
>> housefly,
>> that does not mean we all fall into a morass of moral confusion, and that
>> is
>> precisely what DeGrazia et al are preaching, nothing less.
>
> You've given no evidence of moral confusion.

You're the King of Denial Rupert.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
>> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
>> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
>> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>>
>> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's
>> view
>> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes
>> "too
>> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
>> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>>
>> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty
>> peice
>> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
>> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
>> university.
>
> It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
> consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
> there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.

That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking about
consequences.

> That doesn't mean that it entails utilitarianism. Francione might well
> agree with what I'm saying as far as the environmental argument and
> the argument from fairness of food distribution go, of course he can't
> agree with it as far as the argument from impact on animals goes.
>

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
>> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
>> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
>> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>>
>> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's
>> view
>> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes
>> "too
>> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
>> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>>
>> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty
>> peice
>> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
>> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
>> university.
>
> By the way, I was aware that Francione used to post here, but I
> haven't been able to find any messages from him in the Google
> archives. Does that mean he's deleted them all? I'd be interested in
> reading what he had to say.

I don't recall the pseudonym he used.

On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's
> >> view
> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes
> >> "too
> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty
> >> peice
> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
> >> university.
>
> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>
> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking about
> consequences.
>

Yes, of course it is. A deontological theory is one which holds that
there are constraints on how we may promote the good.

>
>
> > That doesn't mean that it entails utilitarianism. Francione might well
> > agree with what I'm saying as far as the environmental argument and
> > the argument from fairness of food distribution go, of course he can't
> > agree with it as far as the argument from impact on animals goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
>>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
>>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
>>>>> That has never been in dispute.
>>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
>>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
>>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
>>> permitted.
>> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
>> all.
>>
>>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
>>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
>>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
>>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
>> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
>> examined at all.
>>
>>> He does think it's morally permitted.
>> No.
>
> Yes, of course he does.

No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


>> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> Which is quite consistent with what I said.

No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.

You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


> By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> modern farming is utterly idiotic.

It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.

You ****witted plodder.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>>>> than others.
>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>>> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
>>> It is the argument that people are usually actually making.
>> No. It's a separate argument that some, but not most,
>> make. Most make the ****witted and ill-conceived
>> "efficiency" argument.
>>
>
> I don't agree.

Because you're stupid and pig-headed.


>>>>> Also, we
>>>>> could feed more people from a given amount of land.
>>>> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
>>>> "efficiency", ****wit.
>>> You haven't addressed that argument.
>> I *absolutely* have addressed that argument, rupie.
>> It's the point of the entire thread, which you have
>> messed up.
>>
>
> No.

Yes. I have addressed the argument based on the
misconception of efficiency.


> You haven't given any answer to the claim that the demand for meat
> has a pernicious effect on global food distribution.

That claim hasn't been made, even though it's implied.
There is no such pernicious effect. That's a
perception some people have that is based on
unsupportable moral judgments. What they're implicitly
saying is that American agricultural resources "ought"
to be used to feed "the hungry" in the world,
presumably for free. But they're not explicitly
stating that, and so you are wrong to maintain there is
such a claim, and that I haven't addressed it. You
always get this shit wrong, rupie.


>>>>> That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
>>>> Exactly - a misconception.
>>>> Here ya go, cheeselog:
>>>> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
>>>> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
>>>> world food system that diverts food resources from
>>>> the hungry.
>>>> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
>>>> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
>>>> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
>>>> amount of vegetables.
>>> But the possibility is still at least open at this stage that it has a
>>> pernicious effect on global food distribution. You haven't said
>>> anything that addresses this argument.
>> I have, ****wit. That *is* the "inefficiency"
>> argument, and I have shown that it's useless. The
>> resources are *not* inefficiently used, because
>> physical output per unit of physical input is not the
>> relevant criterion.
>
> That has nothing to do with the contention that an increased demand
> for meat has a bad effect on people who have trouble getting enough
> food. You haven't offered any comment on this issue.

No one has stated it. It has only been implied. It is
equally horseshit as the claim that has been made about
"efficiency". Starving people in Somalia have no valid
claim on farmland in Iowa. If they can scrape up the
money to buy some corn, we'll sell it to them, but they
have no valid right to expect that some beneficent
ruler is going to interfere with the Iowan farmer's
right to grow the type of corn he wants and sell it to
the highest bidder. This "fairness" issue you've
raised is just as phony as the "efficiency" one.


>> Output value per unit of input
>> value is the relevant criterion, and producing meat is
>> not inefficient based on that criterion.
>>
>
> This point of yours has no bearing on the argument that an increased
> demand for meat has a bad effect on global food distribution.

No one has made that argument, and it would be as
easily dismissed as the "efficiency" argument.


>>>> People want meat, and they're
>>>> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
>>>> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
>>>> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
>>>> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
>>>> cost of input.
>>>> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
>>>> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
>>>> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
>>>> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.
>>> Yes, but that's nothing to do with the argument you quoted above. That
>>> was an argument about fairness of food distribution.
>> No. There is no discussion about "fairness" at all,
>> except that it seems to be implied - but not mentioned
>> - by the ****witted "vegans".
>>
>
> The arguments from efficiency which are actually made are an argument
> from environmental consequences

NO, rupie. That was dismissed already.


>>>> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
>>>> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
>>>> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
>>>> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
>>>> contained in the end product.
>>>> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
>>>> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
>>>> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
>>>> vegetables.
>>> Yes, that's true.
>> There ya go!

So it's time for you to shut the **** up.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Goo wrote:

>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>
>> So you claim, Goober, but as yet you still can't explain why
>> you think so.
>
>I have shown that it is so,

Yet you can't do it now, and there's absolutely no
evidence that you ever have.
.. . .
> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>it clearly is only for yours.

I can consider both, while you can consider neither.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>> So you claim, Goober, but as yet you still can't explain why
>>> you think so.
>> I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.
>
> Yet you can't do it now

No, I *won't* do it now, ****wit; but I can. You're
just trying to waste my time, ****wit, and as we long
ago established, you do not waste my time - I waste yours.


>> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>> existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>> it clearly is only for yours.
>
> I can consider both

No, you don't. Stop lying, ****wit. You only consider
your benefit. Because you're ashamed of it, you go
through a silly charade of pretending you consider the
benefit of the animals from existing, but there is no
such benefit.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
>> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
>> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
>> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>>
>> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's
>> >> view
>> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes
>> >> "too
>> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
>> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>>
>> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty
>> >> peice
>> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
>> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
>> >> university.
>>
>> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
>> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
>> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>>
>> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking about
>> consequences.
>>
>
> Yes, of course it is.

No, of course it is not.

> A deontological theory is one which holds that
> there are constraints on how we may promote the good.

That's backwards, and not what you just said. You said "an absolutist
deontological view.. holds that there is an absolute prohibition on causing
any of the bad effect." This is wrong, deontology is perfectly willing to
accept adverse effects.

"Let justice be done, though the sky should fall." -- Roman proverb ...

Human beings think in this mode with regard to other human beings. No amount
of harm averted from the use of unwilling human subjects in research can
condone it. We would rather suffer the consequences than experiment on one
murderer.

Deontological thinking does not deal with consequences, it focuses on rights
of the individual, they form the constaints on how we may act, not any
concern over consequences. You keep proving that you are almost totally a
utilitarian, you don't even grasp rights-based thinking.

Suppose that Regan's house became infested with rats; and suppose that the
rats posed no threat to his life or even his health, but only his comfort
and
convenience: they would keep him awake at night, he would constantly have
to try to overcome a natural antipathy toward rats, he wouldn't be able to
invite
guests to his house because they wouldn't come even if invited, and so on.
Under such circumstances, how long would it be before Regan declared
"Enough is enough!" and resolved on some means to get rid of the rats? If he
is to remain consistent with his position, I think the answer would have to
be,
Never. Rats are subjects-of-a-life, along with human beings, and to
terminate
the existence of even one of them would be an immoral act. I cannot help
wondering how long Regan could live with this conclusion. And if he kept on
suffering as the rats grew and multiplied, what would his heroism achieve?
The order of nature would still remain unchanged.

A.E. Housman wrote,
Stars, I have seen them fall;
And when they drop and die,
No star is lost at all
From all the star-sown sky.
The tears of all that be
Help not the primal fault.
It rains into the sea,
And still the sea is salt.

[..]

On Jun 13, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
> >> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
> >> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
> >> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> >> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said: "Singer's
> >> >> view
> >> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes
> >> >> "too
> >> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> >> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> >> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a nasty
> >> >> peice
> >> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a PhD
> >> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of his
> >> >> university.
>
> >> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
> >> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
> >> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>
> >> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking about
> >> consequences.
>
> > Yes, of course it is.
>
> No, of course it is not.
>

Look, I hate to tell you this but I do actually know better than you
what counts as a deontological theory and what doesn't.

> > A deontological theory is one which holds that
> > there are constraints on how we may promote the good.
>
> That's backwards, and not what you just said. You said "an absolutist
> deontological view.. holds that there is an absolute prohibition on causing
> any of the bad effect." This is wrong, deontology is perfectly willing to
> accept adverse effects.
>

In some circumstances, yes. You could have a deontological theory
which had an absolute constraint on financially supporting any
environmental destruction, for example. I was talking about such a
theory as a hypothetical construct, in order generously to concede
some truth in your statement that what I said was inconsistent with
deontology.

> "Let justice be done, though the sky should fall." -- Roman proverb ...
>
> Human beings think in this mode with regard to other human beings. No amount
> of harm averted from the use of unwilling human subjects in research can
> condone it. We would rather suffer the consequences than experiment on one
> murderer.
>

Yes, I know that.

> Deontological thinking does not deal with consequences,

What is true is that deontological thinking holds that there are some
rules that we should follow regardless of the consequences.

> it focuses on rights
> of the individual, they form the constaints on how we may act, not any
> concern over consequences. You keep proving that you are almost totally a
> utilitarian, you don't even grasp rights-based thinking.
>

I understand deontological thinking perfectly well. All this stuff
about how I am really a utilitarian is complete nonsense.

> Suppose that Regan's house became infested with rats; and suppose that the
> rats posed no threat to his life or even his health, but only his comfort
> and
> convenience: they would keep him awake at night, he would constantly have
> to try to overcome a natural antipathy toward rats, he wouldn't be able to
> invite
> guests to his house because they wouldn't come even if invited, and so on.
> Under such circumstances, how long would it be before Regan declared
> "Enough is enough!" and resolved on some means to get rid of the rats? If he
> is to remain consistent with his position, I think the answer would have to
> be,
> Never. Rats are subjects-of-a-life, along with human beings, and to
> terminate
> the existence of even one of them would be an immoral act. I cannot help
> wondering how long Regan could live with this conclusion. And if he kept on
> suffering as the rats grew and multiplied, what would his heroism achieve?
> The order of nature would still remain unchanged.
>

There might be some means by which Regan could deal with the rats
without harming them. Also, Regan has a property right in his house,
so the rats have forfeited at least some of their rights. If you enter
my house without my permission, you have forfeited some of the rights
you would otherwise have; I can use cocercion to get you to leave,
under some circumstances I might even be entitled to use lethal force.

> A.E. Housman wrote,
> Stars, I have seen them fall;
> And when they drop and die,
> No star is lost at all
> From all the star-sown sky.
> The tears of all that be
> Help not the primal fault.
> It rains into the sea,
> And still the sea is salt.
>
> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 13, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 12, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
> >>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >>>>>> than others.
> >>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
> >>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
> >>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >>>>>> devices.
> >>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
> >>>>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
> >>>> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
> >>> It is the argument that people are usually actually making.
> >> No. It's a separate argument that some, but not most,
> >> make. Most make the ****witted and ill-conceived
> >> "efficiency" argument.
>
> > I don't agree.
>
> Because you're stupid and pig-headed.
>

No, because I don't see any evidence for your point of view. You are
welcome to provide some.

> >>>>> Also, we
> >>>>> could feed more people from a given amount of land.
> >>>> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
> >>>> "efficiency", ****wit.
> >>> You haven't addressed that argument.
> >> I *absolutely* have addressed that argument, rupie.
> >> It's the point of the entire thread, which you have
> >> messed up.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. I have addressed the argument based on the
> misconception of efficiency.
>
> > You haven't given any answer to the claim that the demand for meat
> > has a pernicious effect on global food distribution.
>
> That claim hasn't been made, even though it's implied.

Even if it's only implied, you should still address it because it's
obviously the main point of the argument.

> There is no such pernicious effect.

An assertion isn't an argument.

> That's a
> perception some people have that is based on
> unsupportable moral judgments. What they're implicitly
> saying is that American agricultural resources "ought"
> to be used to feed "the hungry" in the world,
> presumably for free. But they're not explicitly
> stating that, and so you are wrong to maintain there is
> such a claim, and that I haven't addressed it. You
> always get this shit wrong, rupie.
>

People who make the argument that you're talking about are obviously
in some way trying to claim that if we ate less meat then some people
in developing countries who don't get very much to eat would be better
off. I grant you they're not very explicit about the mechanism. It's
still your job to argue that the claim is false. And/or to argue that
the moral view that we ought to do some things voluntarily to help
make hungry people better off, when the cost to ourselves is very
small, is "unsupportable". Those two claims are where the action is,
not all this nonsense about what "efficiency" means. That's not
relevant.

Now, you might well be able to reasonably state that these two claims
haven't been adequately argued, and leave it at that. That's a
perfectly reasonable criticism. And then some more discussion can be
had which tries to address that criticism. But it's not the criticism
you were making. The criticism you were making is beside the point. No-
one's suggesting that resource-intensiveness is the only issue.


> >>>>> That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
> >>>> Exactly - a misconception.
> >>>> Here ya go, cheeselog:
> >>>> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
> >>>> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
> >>>> world food system that diverts food resources from
> >>>> the hungry.
> >>>> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
> >>>> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
> >>>> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
> >>>> amount of vegetables.
> >>> But the possibility is still at least open at this stage that it has a
> >>> pernicious effect on global food distribution. You haven't said
> >>> anything that addresses this argument.
> >> I have, ****wit. That *is* the "inefficiency"
> >> argument, and I have shown that it's useless. The
> >> resources are *not* inefficiently used, because
> >> physical output per unit of physical input is not the
> >> relevant criterion.
>
> > That has nothing to do with the contention that an increased demand
> > for meat has a bad effect on people who have trouble getting enough
> > food. You haven't offered any comment on this issue.
>
> No one has stated it. It has only been implied.

However that may be, it's still clearly the point you should be
focussing on.

> It is
> equally horseshit as the claim that has been made about
> "efficiency". Starving people in Somalia have no valid
> claim on farmland in Iowa. If they can scrape up the
> money to buy some corn, we'll sell it to them, but they
> have no valid right to expect that some beneficent
> ruler is going to interfere with the Iowan farmer's
> right to grow the type of corn he wants and sell it to
> the highest bidder. This "fairness" issue you've
> raised is just as phony as the "efficiency" one.
>

We're not talking about government intervention, we're talking about
voluntary attempts by individuals to make the outcome better. Most
people hold that there are some positive duties, some obligations of
beneficence in some circumstances. You should rescue a child if you
see her drowning in a pond, for example. Or if you can save the lives
of six people by flipping a switch, you should do that. The question
is what obligations citizens of developed countries have towards those
in developing countries. Many think they have none, but that view can
be reasonably questioned. See Mylan Engel Jr's "Taking Hunger
Seriously". Even if you don't think there's an obligation to make the
outcome better, you might still be rationally motivated to do it.

There are two claims he (1) cutting down on meat will actually make
the outcome better, (2) there is a moral obligation to make the
outcome better in this case. You've been trying to attack (2). You
haven't managed to show it's wrong yet. But, in any case, (2) is
unnecessary. Even if you don't think there's a moral obligation to
help make the outcome better, you might still be rationally motivated
to do it. If cutting down on meat really does make the outcome better,
then I can go around trying to persuade people who are concerned about
world hunger to cut down on meat on that basis, and my argument is
rational, so long as (1) can be defended. So attacking (2) is not
really the point (and you haven't successfully done that anyway). The
real point is to attack (1).

Now, I agree, defenders of the argument we're talking about haven't
been very explicit about why we should believe (1). Still, I think
there is room for reasonable debate here. If we consumed less meat,
the demand for certain crops would be less, therefore presumably their
market price would be less, and hungry people in developing countries
would be able to consume more. The result of people in developed
countries voluntarily consuming less meat would be that global food
distribution would be more equitable (if you dislike the word
"fairer"). And if it's reasonable to believe that, then some people
might be rationally motivated to cut down on meat. As for the claim
that we're actually morally obliged to do so, well, you can contest
that if you want to. I suggest you have a look at Mylan Engel Jr's
essay "Taking Hunger Seriously" (you can find it with a Google search)
and tell us what's wrong with the argument.


> >> Output value per unit of input
> >> value is the relevant criterion, and producing meat is
> >> not inefficient based on that criterion.
>
> > This point of yours has no bearing on the argument that an increased
> > demand for meat has a bad effect on global food distribution.
>
> No one has made that argument,

Yes, that is the argument that is really being made.

> and it would be as
> easily dismissed as the "efficiency" argument.
>

No, it needs more discussion. You haven't given us any good reason to
reject this argument.

> >>>> People want meat, and they're
> >>>> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
> >>>> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
> >>>> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
> >>>> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
> >>>> cost of input.
> >>>> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
> >>>> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
> >>>> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
> >>>> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.
> >>> Yes, but that's nothing to do with the argument you quoted above. That
> >>> was an argument about fairness of food distribution.
> >> No. There is no discussion about "fairness" at all,
> >> except that it seems to be implied - but not mentioned
> >> - by the ****witted "vegans".
>
> > The arguments from efficiency which are actually made are an argument
> > from environmental consequences
>
> NO, rupie. That was dismissed already.
>

Usually when people talk about the "inefficiency" of meat production
they are really making an environmental argument. There are two
arguments, the environmental argument and the argument from fairness
of food distribution, the former made more commonly. And you've
addressed neither.

> >>>> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
> >>>> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
> >>>> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
> >>>> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
> >>>> contained in the end product.
> >>>> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
> >>>> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
> >>>> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
> >>>> vegetables.
> >>> Yes, that's true.
> >> There ya go!
>
> So it's time for you to shut the **** up.

Um, why? I made a point which you snipped (twice) which shows that
this line of argument is not a particularly strong criticism.

On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> >>> permitted.
> >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> >> all.
>
> >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> >> examined at all.
>
> >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> >> No.
>
> > Yes, of course he does.
>
> No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> false bifurcation.
>

It's not false bifurcation. It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't. If you don't agree with ethical
vegetarians that there's a prohibition on eating meat, then you think
that eating meat is morally permitted. That's what "thinking that
eating meat is morally permitted" means. Don't you understand English?

> >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> He does not think it's morally permitted;

So he's an ethical vegetarian?

> he thinks
> there's no moral dimension to it at all.

That doesn't contradict the obvious fact that he thinks it's morally
permitted.

> To think it's
> morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> not what he thinks.
>

You can't deny that a moral question can be raised about any action.
You can maintain that, in some cases, it's not a question worthy of
serious investigation, that's what K. M. is doing in this case. The
obvious point remains, K. M. thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted, and that's all I ever said. This is all just silly
quibbling about words. If I changed the phrasing to "K. M. is not an
ethical vegetarian" would you finally shut up? And the quibbling is
unfounded, saying "K. M. thinks meat-eating is morally permitted" is a
perfectly reasonable way to describe the situation. You're just being
silly.

> You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> you can't admit it.
>

You're such a fool. Suppose for the sake of argument that I became
convinced that you were right and I was wrong. Then I would say "Yes,
Ball, I guess you were right on that occasion, I retract my claim" and
that would be that. I'm sure you would make a big song and dance about
it, but it wouldn't affect my self-esteem in any way. We're all
mistaken on occasion. The reason I continue to disagree with you is
not because I'm emotionally invested in being right on this particular
occasion, it's because I genuinely think that I am right on this
occasion and that you're just being silly, and raising silly
objections to perfectly reasonable ways of using words. Trying to
claim that my continued disagreement with you is founded on ego rather
than rational criteria is a poor substitute for actually arguing your
case.

You are the one who constantly becomes convinced of silly fantasies
without any rational foundation and then can't let them go because of
your ego. That's why all your talk about "towering arrogance" is so
amusingly absurd. You are monumentally arrogant, I am not arrogant in
the least. Any observer of our behaviour on newsgroups can see that.

All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
31 years old. I only wish I was a bit more youthful. You have a six-
year-old son. Are you in your thirties, forties, fifties, sixties?
What does it matter, anyway? You seriously think any rational person
is going to see being 31 years old as some sort of criticism?

> > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> eating meat.
>
> You ****witted plodder.

If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,
then there's a moral dimension to eating almost all meat that is
actually sold in supermarkets. The fact that it clearly is a serious
moral issue refutes the view that both you and K.M. have been
explicitly advocating.

On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> >>> permitted.
> >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> >> all.
>
> >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> >> examined at all.
>
> >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> >> No.
>
> > Yes, of course he does.
>
> No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> false bifurcation.
>
> >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> not what he thinks.
>
> You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> you can't admit it.
>
> > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> eating meat.
>
> You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability. It looks
like you finally embarrassed even yourself and you're leaving that one
alone. And yes, you should be very embarrassed, Ball. I may or may not
be a John Nash or a John von Neumann. We'll have to wait and see.
Certainly you are not competent to judge the matter. But the claim
that I am a "waste of educational resources" or that my "Ph.D. is
worthless" is utterly absurd. I am an extremely talented mathematician
who has done some interesting research. I am light-years ahead of you
in mathematical knowledge and understanding, you couldn't even begin
to understand the topics I deal with in my thesis. And you have the
chutzpah to say it's "worthless"? What on earth would you know about
it? What a ridiculous clown you are.

On Jun 11, 10:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > twittered
(in spite of his PPP):
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> livestock.
>
> >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> than others.
>
> >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> devices.
>
> >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> I hope this helps.
>
> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
>
> > Also, we
> > could feed more people from a given amount of land.
>
> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
> "efficiency", ****wit.
>
> > That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
>
> Exactly - a misconception.
>
> Here ya go, cheeselog:
>
> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
> world food system that diverts food resources from
> the hungry.
>
> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
>
> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
> amount of vegetables. People want meat, and they're
> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
> cost of input.
>
> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.




You STUPID, STUPID, INCREDIBLY STUPID Goober!!

That's ECONOMICS not EFFICIENCY!!




>
> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
> contained in the end product.
>
> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
> vegetables.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 11, 11:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>> *consumption*.
> >>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>> livestock.
> >>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
> >>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >>>> than others.
> >>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
> >>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
> >>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >>>> devices.
> >>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >>>> meat production falls to the ground.
> >>>> I hope this helps.
> >>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
> >> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
>
> > It is the argument that people are usually actually making.
>
> No. It's a separate argument that some, but not most,
> make. Most make the ****witted and ill-conceived
> "efficiency" argument.
>
> >>> Also, we
> >>> could feed more people from a given amount of land.
> >> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
> >> "efficiency", ****wit.
>
> > You haven't addressed that argument.
>
> I *absolutely* have addressed that argument, rupie.
> It's the point of the entire thread, which you have
> messed up.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
> >> Exactly - a misconception.
>
> >> Here ya go, cheeselog:
>
> >> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
> >> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
> >> world food system that diverts food resources from
> >> the hungry.
>
> >> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
>
> >> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
> >> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
> >> amount of vegetables.
>
> > But the possibility is still at least open at this stage that it has a
> > pernicious effect on global food distribution. You haven't said
> > anything that addresses this argument.
>
> I have, ****wit. That *is* the "inefficiency"
> argument, and I have shown that it's useless. The
> resources are *not* inefficiently used, because
> physical output per unit of physical input is not the
> relevant criterion. Output value per unit of input
> value is the relevant criterion, and producing meat is
> not inefficient based on that criterion.
>
> >> People want meat, and they're
> >> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
> >> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
> >> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
> >> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
> >> cost of input.
>
> >> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
> >> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
> >> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
> >> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.
>
> > Yes, but that's nothing to do with the argument you quoted above. That
> > was an argument about fairness of food distribution.
>
> No. There is no discussion about "fairness" at all,
> except that it seems to be implied - but not mentioned
> - by the ****witted "vegans".
>
>
>
> >> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
> >> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
> >> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
> >> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
> >> contained in the end product.
>
> >> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
> >> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
> >> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
> >> vegetables.
>
> > Yes, that's true.
>
> There ya go!




And using *that* argument Goo it's obvious that you should be
retroactively aborted.








- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 13, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> groups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.
>> >> >> > You
>> >> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the
>> >> >> > argument
>> >> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>>
>> >> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said:
>> >> >> "Singer's
>> >> >> view
>> >> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what
>> >> >> constitutes
>> >> >> "too
>> >> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
>> >> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>>
>> >> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a
>> >> >> nasty
>> >> >> peice
>> >> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a
>> >> >> PhD
>> >> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> university.
>>
>> >> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
>> >> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
>> >> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>>
>> >> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking
>> >> about
>> >> consequences.
>>
>> > Yes, of course it is.
>>
>> No, of course it is not.
>>
>
> Look, I hate to tell you this but I do actually know better than you
> what counts as a deontological theory and what doesn't.

Look chum, I REALLY hate to break this to YOU, but you're blowing smoke out
of your ass. Your notion that you are an expert on this stuff is laughable.

>> > A deontological theory is one which holds that
>> > there are constraints on how we may promote the good.
>>
>> That's backwards, and not what you just said. You said "an absolutist
>> deontological view.. holds that there is an absolute prohibition on
>> causing
>> any of the bad effect." This is wrong, deontology is perfectly willing to
>> accept adverse effects.
>>
>
> In some circumstances, yes. You could have a deontological theory
> which had an absolute constraint on financially supporting any
> environmental destruction, for example. I was talking about such a
> theory as a hypothetical construct, in order generously to concede
> some truth in your statement that what I said was inconsistent with
> deontology.

You're waving your arms frantically, chum, and making no sense.

>> "Let justice be done, though the sky should fall." -- Roman proverb ...
>>
>> Human beings think in this mode with regard to other human beings. No
>> amount
>> of harm averted from the use of unwilling human subjects in research can
>> condone it. We would rather suffer the consequences than experiment on
>> one
>> murderer.
>>
>
> Yes, I know that.

You don't appear to know it at all, you're attributing completely
utilitarian motivations and claiming they are deontological. You're
seriously confused.

>
>> Deontological thinking does not deal with consequences,
>
> What is true is that deontological thinking holds that there are some
> rules that we should follow regardless of the consequences.

Just what I said, and "an absolutist deontological view.. holds that there
is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect." is still
nonsense, attributing utilitarian considerations to deontology.

>> it focuses on rights
>> of the individual, they form the constaints on how we may act, not any
>> concern over consequences. You keep proving that you are almost totally a
>> utilitarian, you don't even grasp rights-based thinking.
>>
>
> I understand deontological thinking perfectly well.

No, you THINK you do, your words reveal profound confusion. Your expertise
in math has led to wrongly believe that you are infallible, thus you are
loaded with misconceptions.

> All this stuff
> about how I am really a utilitarian is complete nonsense.

Empty bluster wins no-one over.

>> Suppose that Regan's house became infested with rats; and suppose that
>> the
>> rats posed no threat to his life or even his health, but only his comfort
>> and
>> convenience: they would keep him awake at night, he would constantly have
>> to try to overcome a natural antipathy toward rats, he wouldn't be able
>> to
>> invite
>> guests to his house because they wouldn't come even if invited, and so
>> on.
>> Under such circumstances, how long would it be before Regan declared
>> "Enough is enough!" and resolved on some means to get rid of the rats? If
>> he
>> is to remain consistent with his position, I think the answer would have
>> to
>> be,
>> Never. Rats are subjects-of-a-life, along with human beings, and to
>> terminate
>> the existence of even one of them would be an immoral act. I cannot help
>> wondering how long Regan could live with this conclusion. And if he kept
>> on
>> suffering as the rats grew and multiplied, what would his heroism
>> achieve?
>> The order of nature would still remain unchanged.
>>
>
> There might be some means by which Regan could deal with the rats
> without harming them. Also, Regan has a property right in his house,
> so the rats have forfeited at least some of their rights. If you enter
> my house without my permission, you have forfeited some of the rights
> you would otherwise have; I can use cocercion to get you to leave,
> under some circumstances I might even be entitled to use lethal force.

Animals do not need "permission", nor can they be expected to respect our
rights, those things only apply to moral agents. "Equal consideration" is a
two-edged sword, if we are to treat them in accordance with their own nature
then we must allow them to do what their nature dictates. To be consistent,
unless they are threatening our lives, as subjects-of-a-life we must not
harm them for our convenience. If you propose principles you don't abandon
them at your whim.


>
>> A.E. Housman wrote,
>> Stars, I have seen them fall;
>> And when they drop and die,
>> No star is lost at all
>> From all the star-sown sky.
>> The tears of all that be
>> Help not the primal fault.
>> It rains into the sea,
>> And still the sea is salt.
>>
>> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

On Jun 9, 2:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>> ..
> >>>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> >>>> protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> >>>> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour.
> >>> 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
> >>> insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
> >>> Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
> >>> [snip anti-intellectual twaddle]
> >> First of all, YOU are the one who attempts to use
> >> anthropology to justify a dietary "philosophy", you
> >> stupid **** whore. The problem is you try to do it
> >> selectively, picking the tiny bits that support your
> >> crackpot dietary philosophy and rejecting the vast
> >> majority that contradicts it. Of course, as I've
> >> pointed out dozens of times, you have read NOT ONE
> >> ****ING WORD of original literature on the topic. You
> >> CANNOT read it, as you have no exposure to the field.
>
> >> But the second thing is, the entire attempt on your
> >> part is a waste of time, because anthropologists don't
> >> care about a dietary "philosophy"; they're interested
> >> only showing what early humans actually did eat. Their
> >> conclusion is, they ate meat. The earliest humans and
> >> their predecessor species ate meat. This is not in
> >> serious dispute among anthropologists. You can try to
> >> supply whatever crackpot "philosophical" explanations
> >> you wish for it, but humans eat and have always eaten
> >> meat. And yes, they are adapted to it.
>
> > 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
> > insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
>
> [snip anti-science, anti-intellectual bullshit]
>
> There is is: you disparage anthropology. So, you lied
> when you denied having done it.
>
> You ****ing slut.

Ball, has it ever occurred to you that maybe you should do something
about the fact that you're such a contemptible, worthless human being?

On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > >>> permitted.
> > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > >> all.
>
> > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > >> examined at all.
>
> > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > >> No.
>
> > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > false bifurcation.
>
> It's not false bifurcation.

Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.

> It's true that you either think something
> is morally permitted or you don't.

No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.

You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


> > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> So he's an ethical vegetarian?

See below, ****drip.


> > he thinks
> > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> That doesn't contradict the obvious fact

Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.

> that he thinks it's morally permitted.

It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.


> > To think it's
> > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > not what he thinks.
>
> You can't deny that a moral question can be raised

K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited. He thinks -
correctly - there is no moral issue.


> > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > you can't admit it.
>
> You're such

I'm right.


> All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> 31 years old.

Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
world, you are far younger. It shows.


> > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > eating meat.
>
> > You ****witted plodder.
>
> If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,

Not what we're talking about.

On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > >>> permitted.
> > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > >> all.
>
> > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > >> examined at all.
>
> > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > >> No.
>
> > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > false bifurcation.
>
> > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > not what he thinks.
>
> > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > you can't admit it.
>
> > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > eating meat.
>
> > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.

None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.

On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > >>> permitted.
> > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > >> all.
>
> > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > >> No.
>
> > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > false bifurcation.
>
> > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>

No, it's not. Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
You're such an imbecile.

> > It's true that you either think something
> > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> assume that there is a moral issue.
>

No, they do not.

> You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>

I'm afraid you're the one who's being thick. And I'm not a boy, I'm a
31-year-old man.

God help me, you're a fool.

> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> See below, ****drip.
>
> > > he thinks
> > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>

A very obvious fact, as anyone with a single functioning brain cell
can see.

This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English. All you're doing is
making petty semantic quibbles, and ridiculous ones at that.

> > that he thinks it's morally permitted.
>
> It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.
>

No it doesn't, you imbecile.

> > > To think it's
> > > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > not what he thinks.
>
> > You can't deny that a moral question can be raised
>
> K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
> is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.

That's not coherent. If you don't think something is morally
prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted. This all
boils down to a trivial disagreement about how to use words. It
wouldn't matter very much if your way of using words was the correct
way, but as it happens it's not, my way is correct.


> He thinks -
> correctly - there is no moral issue.
>
> > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > you can't admit it.
>
> > You're such
>
> I'm right.
>

'Fraid not.

> > All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> > 31 years old.
>
> Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
> inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
> not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
> years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
> world, you are far younger. It shows.
>

How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
thinking this? I'm fascinated.

> > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > eating meat.
>
> > > You ****witted plodder.
>
> > If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,
>
> Not what we're talking about.

Yes it is, you fool, because if there is such an issue, then the
contention that you and K. M. are both making that there is no moral
issue about eating meat is false.

It really is remarkable how you constantly throw words like "****wit"
around while being so remarkably dense.

On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > >>> permitted.
> > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > >> all.
>
> > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > >> No.
>
> > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > eating meat.
>
> > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> talent.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not. You can't understand a single word of my thesis. You're
incapable of appreciating what constitutes mathematical talent and
what doesn't. Only people who are competent to do so can judge whether
I have mathematical talent.

This is another silly fantasy you've made up about me without any
rational foundation, just like all the others. And you don't even
realize you're just making it all up, do you? You really think you
have some good reason to believe that I lack mathematical talent, that
you are somehow competent to comment on the issue. What a ridiculous
fool.

On Jun 13, 10:36 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> groups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.
> >> >> >> > You
> >> >> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the
> >> >> >> > argument
> >> >> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> >> >> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said:
> >> >> >> "Singer's
> >> >> >> view
> >> >> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what
> >> >> >> constitutes
> >> >> >> "too
> >> >> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> >> >> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> >> >> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a
> >> >> >> nasty
> >> >> >> peice
> >> >> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a
> >> >> >> PhD
> >> >> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> university.
>
> >> >> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
> >> >> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
> >> >> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>
> >> >> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking
> >> >> about
> >> >> consequences.
>
> >> > Yes, of course it is.
>
> >> No, of course it is not.
>
> > Look, I hate to tell you this but I do actually know better than you
> > what counts as a deontological theory and what doesn't.
>
> Look chum, I REALLY hate to break this to YOU, but you're blowing smoke out
> of your ass. Your notion that you are an expert on this stuff is laughable.
>

In your view. I'm afraid I don't find what you have to say very
persuasive.

>
>
>
>
> >> > A deontological theory is one which holds that
> >> > there are constraints on how we may promote the good.
>
> >> That's backwards, and not what you just said. You said "an absolutist
> >> deontological view.. holds that there is an absolute prohibition on
> >> causing
> >> any of the bad effect." This is wrong, deontology is perfectly willing to
> >> accept adverse effects.
>
> > In some circumstances, yes. You could have a deontological theory
> > which had an absolute constraint on financially supporting any
> > environmental destruction, for example. I was talking about such a
> > theory as a hypothetical construct, in order generously to concede
> > some truth in your statement that what I said was inconsistent with
> > deontology.
>
> You're waving your arms frantically, chum, and making no sense.
>

No, that's not the case. You're having trouble following me. Well,
that's fine.

> >> "Let justice be done, though the sky should fall." -- Roman proverb ...
>
> >> Human beings think in this mode with regard to other human beings. No
> >> amount
> >> of harm averted from the use of unwilling human subjects in research can
> >> condone it. We would rather suffer the consequences than experiment on
> >> one
> >> murderer.
>
> > Yes, I know that.
>
> You don't appear to know it at all, you're attributing completely
> utilitarian motivations and claiming they are deontological. You're
> seriously confused.
>

No, I'm not. I know perfectly well what deontology and
consequentialism are. Consequentialism is the view that we always
ought to do whatever it takes to make the outcome as good as possible,
no matter what. Deontology is the view that there are certain
constraints on how we should act which we should observe regardless of
the consequences. I'm not in the least confused about that, and I've
never displayed any confusion. It is you who is getting confused.

>
>
> >> Deontological thinking does not deal with consequences,
>
> > What is true is that deontological thinking holds that there are some
> > rules that we should follow regardless of the consequences.
>
> Just what I said, and "an absolutist deontological view.. holds that there
> is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect." is still
> nonsense, attributing utilitarian considerations to deontology.
>

Say you think there's an absolute prohibition on financially
supporting any process which causes any environmental degradation,
regardless of the consequences. That's a deontological constraint.

> >> it focuses on rights
> >> of the individual, they form the constaints on how we may act, not any
> >> concern over consequences. You keep proving that you are almost totally a
> >> utilitarian, you don't even grasp rights-based thinking.
>
> > I understand deontological thinking perfectly well.
>
> No, you THINK you do, your words reveal profound confusion. Your expertise
> in math has led to wrongly believe that you are infallible, thus you are
> loaded with misconceptions.
>

No, I'm afraid not.

> > All this stuff
> > about how I am really a utilitarian is complete nonsense.
>
> Empty bluster wins no-one over.
>

I've argued the point at length many times. Anyone competent in moral
philosophy would agree with me. It's not empty bluster, it's the
truth, demonstrated to any reasonable person's satisfaction many
times.

>
>
>
>
> >> Suppose that Regan's house became infested with rats; and suppose that
> >> the
> >> rats posed no threat to his life or even his health, but only his comfort
> >> and
> >> convenience: they would keep him awake at night, he would constantly have
> >> to try to overcome a natural antipathy toward rats, he wouldn't be able
> >> to
> >> invite
> >> guests to his house because they wouldn't come even if invited, and so
> >> on.
> >> Under such circumstances, how long would it be before Regan declared
> >> "Enough is enough!" and resolved on some means to get rid of the rats? If
> >> he
> >> is to remain consistent with his position, I think the answer would have
> >> to
> >> be,
> >> Never. Rats are subjects-of-a-life, along with human beings, and to
> >> terminate
> >> the existence of even one of them would be an immoral act. I cannot help
> >> wondering how long Regan could live with this conclusion. And if he kept
> >> on
> >> suffering as the rats grew and multiplied, what would his heroism
> >> achieve?
> >> The order of nature would still remain unchanged.
>
> > There might be some means by which Regan could deal with the rats
> > without harming them. Also, Regan has a property right in his house,
> > so the rats have forfeited at least some of their rights. If you enter
> > my house without my permission, you have forfeited some of the rights
> > you would otherwise have; I can use cocercion to get you to leave,
> > under some circumstances I might even be entitled to use lethal force.
>
> Animals do not need "permission", nor can they be expected to respect our
> rights, those things only apply to moral agents.

It's true that only moral agents can be held morally accountable for
their actions, but I still think it's plausible to think that moral
patients who perform actions that would be rights violations if they
were moral agents might thereby forfeit some of their rights.

> "Equal consideration" is a
> two-edged sword, if we are to treat them in accordance with their own nature
> then we must allow them to do what their nature dictates. To be consistent,
> unless they are threatening our lives, as subjects-of-a-life we must not
> harm them for our convenience. If you propose principles you don't abandon
> them at your whim.
>

I'm not abandoning equal consideration at all. I'm afraid you really
don't understand what it means. What you're saying above is one
possible view, yes, it's not the only view consistent with equal
consideration.

>
>
>
>
> >> A.E. Housman wrote,
> >> Stars, I have seen them fall;
> >> And when they drop and die,
> >> No star is lost at all
> >> From all the star-sown sky.
> >> The tears of all that be
> >> Help not the primal fault.
> >> It rains into the sea,
> >> And still the sea is salt.
>
> >> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > >> all.
>
> > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> No, it's not.

Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


> Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.

WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


> > > It's true that you either think something
> > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> No, they do not.

YES, rupie, they do.


> > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> I'm afraid

So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


> And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.

You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > he thinks
> > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> A very obvious fact,

Not a fact.


> This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> obvious to anyone who can understand English.

It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.

rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones. The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*. That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way. If
there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.

You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.


> > > that he thinks it's morally permitted.
>
> > It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.
>
> No it doesn't,

It does. You are wrong - again.


> > > > To think it's
> > > > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > You can't deny that a moral question can be raised
>
> > K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
> > is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> That's not coherent.

Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
you.


> If you don't think something is morally
> prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.

False bifurcation.


> > He thinks -
> > correctly - there is no moral issue.
>
> > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > You're such
>
> > I'm right.
>
> 'Fraid not.

I can assure you I am.


> > > All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> > > 31 years old.
>
> > Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
> > inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
> > not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
> > years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
> > world, you are far younger. It shows.
>
> How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
> thinking this? I'm fascinated.

It's obvious.


> > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > You ****witted plodder.
>
> > > If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,
>
> > Not what we're talking about.
>
> Yes it is,

No, it is not.

On Jun 12, 6:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> groups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.
> >> >> >> > You
> >> >> >> > could have versions of the environmental argument and the
> >> >> >> > argument
> >> >> >> > from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.
>
> >> >> >> That is clearly a utilitarian point of view. Francione said:
> >> >> >> "Singer's
> >> >> >> view
> >> >> >> reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what
> >> >> >> constitutes
> >> >> >> "too
> >> >> >> much" suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the
> >> >> >> use-however "humane"-of nonhumans."
>
> >> >> >> Francione has posted to aaev/tpa before by the way, and quite a
> >> >> >> nasty
> >> >> >> peice
> >> >> >> of work he turned out to be. He stalked one of the antis who was a
> >> >> >> PhD
> >> >> >> student at the time (via email) and tried to get him thrown out of
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> university.
>
> >> >> > It's not a utilitarian point of view. It's true that it's not
> >> >> > consistent with an absolutist deontological view which holds that
> >> >> > there is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect.
>
> >> >> That's not a deontological perspective either, you're still talking
> >> >> about
> >> >> consequences.
>
> >> > Yes, of course it is.
>
> >> No, of course it is not.
>
> > Look, I hate to tell you this but I do actually know better than you
> > what counts as a deontological theory and what doesn't.
>
> Look chum, I REALLY hate to break this to YOU, but you're blowing smoke out
> of your ass. Your notion that you are an expert on this stuff is laughable.
>




Do you want us to think of you as Mini Goo, Goo Two, or Baby Goo?

Which do you prefer?.........because it's very obvious that you have
been created in Goo's image.
(shudder at the thought);o(








>
>
>
>
> >> > A deontological theory is one which holds that
> >> > there are constraints on how we may promote the good.
>
> >> That's backwards, and not what you just said. You said "an absolutist
> >> deontological view.. holds that there is an absolute prohibition on
> >> causing
> >> any of the bad effect." This is wrong, deontology is perfectly willing to
> >> accept adverse effects.
>
> > In some circumstances, yes. You could have a deontological theory
> > which had an absolute constraint on financially supporting any
> > environmental destruction, for example. I was talking about such a
> > theory as a hypothetical construct, in order generously to concede
> > some truth in your statement that what I said was inconsistent with
> > deontology.
>
> You're waving your arms frantically, chum, and making no sense.
>
> >> "Let justice be done, though the sky should fall." -- Roman proverb ...
>
> >> Human beings think in this mode with regard to other human beings. No
> >> amount
> >> of harm averted from the use of unwilling human subjects in research can
> >> condone it. We would rather suffer the consequences than experiment on
> >> one
> >> murderer.
>
> > Yes, I know that.
>
> You don't appear to know it at all, you're attributing completely
> utilitarian motivations and claiming they are deontological. You're
> seriously confused.
>
>
>
> >> Deontological thinking does not deal with consequences,
>
> > What is true is that deontological thinking holds that there are some
> > rules that we should follow regardless of the consequences.
>
> Just what I said, and "an absolutist deontological view.. holds that there
> is an absolute prohibition on causing any of the bad effect." is still
> nonsense, attributing utilitarian considerations to deontology.
>
> >> it focuses on rights
> >> of the individual, they form the constaints on how we may act, not any
> >> concern over consequences. You keep proving that you are almost totally a
> >> utilitarian, you don't even grasp rights-based thinking.
>
> > I understand deontological thinking perfectly well.
>
> No, you THINK you do, your words reveal profound confusion. Your expertise
> in math has led to wrongly believe that you are infallible, thus you are
> loaded with misconceptions.
>
> > All this stuff
> > about how I am really a utilitarian is complete nonsense.
>
> Empty bluster wins no-one over.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Suppose that Regan's house became infested with rats; and suppose that
> >> the
> >> rats posed no threat to his life or even his health, but only his comfort
> >> and
> >> convenience: they would keep him awake at night, he would constantly have
> >> to try to overcome a natural antipathy toward rats, he wouldn't be able
> >> to
> >> invite
> >> guests to his house because they wouldn't come even if invited, and so
> >> on.
> >> Under such circumstances, how long would it be before Regan declared
> >> "Enough is enough!" and resolved on some means to get rid of the rats? If
> >> he
> >> is to remain consistent with his position, I think the answer would have
> >> to
> >> be,
> >> Never. Rats are subjects-of-a-life, along with human beings, and to
> >> terminate
> >> the existence of even one of them would be an immoral act. I cannot help
> >> wondering how long Regan could live with this conclusion. And if he kept
> >> on
> >> suffering as the rats grew and multiplied, what would his heroism
> >> achieve?
> >> The order of nature would still remain unchanged.
>
> > There might be some means by which Regan could deal with the rats
> > without harming them. Also, Regan has a property right in his house,
> > so the rats have forfeited at least some of their rights. If you enter
> > my house without my permission, you have forfeited some of the rights
> > you would otherwise have; I can use cocercion to get you to leave,
> > under some circumstances I might even be entitled to use lethal force.
>
> Animals do not need "permission", nor can they be expected to respect our
> rights, those things only apply to moral agents. "Equal consideration" is a
> two-edged sword, if we are to treat them in accordance with their own nature
> then we must allow them to do what their nature dictates. To be consistent,
> unless they are threatening our lives, as subjects-of-a-life we must not
> harm them for our convenience. If you propose principles you don't abandon
> them at your whim.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> A.E. Housman wrote,
> >> Stars, I have seen them fall;
> >> And when they drop and die,
> >> No star is lost at all
> >> From all the star-sown sky.
> >> The tears of all that be
> >> Help not the primal fault.
> >> It rains into the sea,
> >> And still the sea is salt.
>
> >> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 12, 8:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > >>> permitted.
> > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > >> all.
>
> > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > >> No.
>
> > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > eating meat.
>
> > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> talent.




You have bad cud Goo.





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > >> all.
>
> > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > talent.
>
> You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> talent or not.

I do know, rupie. I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.

I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.

On Jun 13, 12:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > talent.
>
> > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > talent or not.
>
> I do know, rupie. I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> outside your expertise.


And what makes you think "animal ethics" is within *your* expertise
Goo?

You can't explain any part of it.








>
> I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> for it, nor for any Nobel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > talent.
>
> > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > talent or not.
>
> I do know, rupie.

As I say, this is the funniest delusion you've had yet. You know
absolutely nothing about mathematics, Ball. You couldn't possibly have
a clue what my level of talent is.

> I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> outside your expertise.
>

It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study. I have a friend,
John Hadley, who has a Ph.D. in animal ethics. He respects me as
someone with good knowledge and understanding of the field. The
director of laboratory animal services at the University of Sydney
runs a compulsory program for students who are about to do Honours
projects using animals whereby during one of the weeks of the course
two people come and speak to them, one person speaking about animal
rights philosophy and the other (my friend Siobhan O'Sullivan, who is
about to complete a Ph.D. in political science) speaking about the
politics of the animal protection movement. John recommended me for
the job when he was unable to do it himself on account of having
recently moved to Bathurst. I achieved excellent results in philosophy
during my undergraduate degree. I am well-read in many areas of
philosophy, especially so in ethics. I have a publication in a peer-
reviewed journal in the field of ethics (not animal ethics). I have
presented a paper about animal ethics at a conference which was well-
received. I recently attended a conference about Peter Singer's work
and had many interesting discussions with many people there, including
Peter Singer. I may well publish in animal ethics in the future.

Am I an expert? Well, I'm well-read in the subject and knowledgeable
about it, certainly more so than you. When I've actually got a few
publications under my belt, I grant you, then we'll have more to talk
about.

Anyway, to get to the main point: does your knowledge of my interest
in animal ethics give you any insight whatsoever into my level of
mathematical talent? Of course not, the idea is quite absurd. You
really are quite profoundly disconnected from reality, Ball.
Professional help could well be a good idea for you.


> I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> for it, nor for any Nobel.

There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40. Andrew Wiles was only
just too old for it when he proved Fermat's last theorem, so he
received another form of special recognition. An Australian, Terry
Tao, recently received it for proving that there are arbitrarily long
arithmetic progressions in the primes. Terry Tao is about my age. He
was in the International Maths Olympiad at the age of ten and
completed an Honours degree at the age of sixteen. His IQ was
estimated at 230. I met his brother in the Maths Olympiad training
program, I recently met him at a meeting of the Australian
Mathematical Society. Terry Tao is much more talented and accomplished
than me, I grant you. He is much more talented and accomplished than
just about everyone.

The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one. What my level of mathematical achievement will be is
hard to say at this point. I am actually considering options other
than an academic career, in the event that I get a job in industry
that will certainly curtail my mathematical research activities. The
reason I am investigating this option is because I have been
influenced by Peter Singer's and Peter Unger's work suggesting that
there is an obligation to take the highest-paying job you can and use
the money to alleviate suffering in the poorest parts of the world. I
do not think that there is such an obligation, but studying the work
has led me to become more motivated to take advantage of opportunities
to alleviate suffering.

The fact that I probably won't get the Fields Medal does not mean that
I am not a talented mathematician, or that my Ph.D. is "worthless" or
that I am a "waste of educational resources". The Fields Medal is the
highest level of achievement possible.

I am a talented mathematician. I have always achieved at a high level.
I am very knowledgeable and widely-read, more so than my fellow Ph.D.
students. My research is interesting and important work which has been
well-received at conferences and has already caught the attention of
at least one academic other than my supervisor. So far it has one
citation, in a paper co-written by myself and my supervisor and three
other mathematicians (however, I did not contribute to the writing of
the paper, I merely provided some of the ideas in it and helped to
check it). The scholarship my university provided me with was money
well-spent. What my level of mathematical achievement will be no-one
can tell yet, least of all you. The idea that you, who knows
absolutely nothing about mathematics, have some sort of insight into
the quality of my work or how successful I will be as a researcher, is
the most amusing spectacle you have provided us with yet, and it's got
some stiff competition. I can understand your thinking you might be
competent to comment on my level of understanding of animal ethics,
but the idea that you have some insight into my level of mathematical
talent is an absolute scream. You're just too much. Keep it up, Ball,
it's very entertaining. Say some more funny stuff.

On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> NEITHER.
>

Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on, isn't it,
Ball? The only trouble is, it's very obvious rubbish.

> > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > No, they do not.
>
> YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > I'm afraid
>
> So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> then.
>

You know, when I was psychotic, I often used to read meanings into
individual words in sentences, which would not have been supported by
looking at the context. Interesting how much you have in common with
psychotic people.

Why would I get the **** out, when I'm having such fun making a clown
out of you, as always?

> > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> "delicate BOY".
>

Apparently the way I look is somehow relevant to your contention.

Yes, well, you have all sorts of interesting opinions about people,
Ball, and you're always quite convinced that they're well-founded
opinions. You think you're competent to judge the quality of my
mathematical work, that's an interesting one. What you seem not to
understand is that in the eyes of rational people you look like a
deluded loon.

Anyway, supposing you were right, what would the relevance be to our
discussion?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > A very obvious fact,
>
> Not a fact.
>
> > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> arrogance, you can't admit it.
>

Yawn. Can't you think of any new lines? I've already pointed out the
absurd irony of this contention more than once.

> rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> white ones.

Yes, it can and clearly is. You're stipulating a nonstandard usage.

> The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> *prohibited*.

Why? It's logically possible that every prime which leaves a remainder
of 1 when you divide it by 4 is a sum of two squares, so it must also
be logically possible that that's not the case? Why couldn't you have
an action which was clearly morally permitted and there was no serious
moral issue about it?

> That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.

Why? I see no reason at all why that should be the case. An assertion
is not an argument.

> If
> there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>

Well, I do. As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
and I believe that my usage is standard. In any case, this is a
trivial semantic dispute. No particularly interesting issue is
resolved by whether we decide to go with your usage or mine. I believe
that my usage is clearly standard, you believe otherwise, well, fine,
what of it? It's hardly rational to make a big song and dance out of
it and start swearing at people.

> You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.
>

Well, I'm not, Ball. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that
your point of view is to some extent reasonable, which I don't really
think it is, my point of view is perfectly reasonable as well. It's no
evidence of stupidity. It's also not very rational to practically
burst a blood vessel over a trivial semantic dispute.

> > > > that he thinks it's morally permitted.
>
> > > It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.
>
> > No it doesn't,
>
> It does. You are wrong - again.
>

No, I'm afraid not.

> > > > > To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > You can't deny that a moral question can be raised
>
> > > K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
> > > is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> > That's not coherent.
>
> Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
> you.
>

No, it's not, not to anyone who understands the English language.

> > If you don't think something is morally
> > prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.
>
> False bifurcation.
>

Wrong.

> > > He thinks -
> > > correctly - there is no moral issue.
>
> > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > You're such
>
> > > I'm right.
>
> > 'Fraid not.
>
> I can assure you I am.
>

Oh, you assure me that it is so, do you, Ball? Well, *that's*
convincing.

> > > > All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> > > > 31 years old.
>
> > > Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
> > > inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
> > > not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
> > > years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
> > > world, you are far younger. It shows.
>
> > How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
> > thinking this? I'm fascinated.
>
> It's obvious.
>

Apparently you do not care to elaborate on the reasons. What a shame.
It might have been amusing.

Look, Ball, I grant you that my level of experience with full-time
employment and living out of home is less than most people my age. (On
the other hand, my level of experience with academic research is
higher). I am happy to go along with that, and I don't see any
particular reason why I should feel bad about it.

As for the remarks about my "level of social adjustment", I don't
think we can really take you as a model of a socially well-adjusted
person. Your level of social adjustment is about that of a twelve-year-
old.

And I really fail to see how you can have any insight into my level of
understanding of the way the world works. You often become strongly
convinced of certain opinions you hold about people, believing that
they are absolutely certain when in fact they clearly lack the
slightest rational foundation. I strongly suspect that this is another
case like that. But I am happy to listen to what you have to say if
you care to elaborate on the matter.


> > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > You ****witted plodder.
>
> > > > If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,
>
> > > Not what we're talking about.
>
> > Yes it is,
>
> No, it is not.

Translation: I've lost the argument, so I'll snip it and pretend I was
never refuted.