On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Don wrote:
> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
> om...
> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye
> >>>>>> afforded:
> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to
> >>>>>>> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a
> >>>>>>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as
> >>>>>>> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a
> >>>>>>> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely
> >>>>>>> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
> >>>>>>> starting to eat meat.
> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their
> >>>>>> bodies
> >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die
> >>>>>> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also
> >>>>>> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
> >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live
> >>>>>> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral
> >>>>>> commitment"?
> >>>>> This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination.
> >>>> No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are
> >>>> morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal
> >>>> parts. That such a false moral belief underlies
> >>>> "veganism" is not in rational dispute.
> >>> Why is it false,
> >> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
> >> animals, killer.
>
> > Yes, I know.
>
> Then, you know why the moral belief is false, too.

No, Ball, I don't. I've explained many times why this argument is
absurd. You really are beyond hope.

Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
processes which harm animals (to a lesser extent) is no reason at all
why they should not be acting in a way that is morally preferable to
the way that typical people act.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 10:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fabricated a story about David Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
>>> Any rational observer could see that
>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>
> Yes, that's right

Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
You also showed you're a green, immature boy.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:27 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> No, I don't.
>>>>>> Yes, you do.
>>>>> This is a delusion.
>>>> No, rupie.
>>> You've got quite
>> No, rupie.
>>
>
> It's very obvious to any observer of

It's very obvious to any observer of your green,
immature, boyish behavior that you're a punk.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm immature
>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>> you constantly act like a twelve-year-old.
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> It's plain for all to see
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> This
>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> white ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it can and clearly is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
>>>>>>>>>>>> of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
>>>>>>>>>>>> of moral prohibition.
>>>>>>>>>>> What extraordinary drivel.
>>>>>>>>>> No, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
>>>>>>>>>>>> dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, to me it obviously does,
>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>>>>>>>>>> If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
>>>>>>>>>> preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
>>>>>>>>>> permitted.
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>> No, right.
>>>>>>>>> Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>>>>>>>> FALSE. That's your ****witted false bifurcation again. It's a
>>>>>>>> logical fallacy. This is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary
>>>>>>>> awareness of logic and plain language.
>>>>>>> Yes, well, that's the dispute between us.
>>>>>> There is no dispute.
>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>> No. There is no legitimate dispute. You're being stubborn.
>>>>>> You're wrong. You're engaging in a logical
>>>>>> fallacy, false bifurcation.
>>>>> You think I'm wrong,
>>>> You *are* wrong. You're wrong because you're clinging to a logical
>>>> fallacy: false bifurcation.
>>>> There is at least a third outcome, where things are neither morally
>>>> permitted nor morally prohibited, because there is no moral dimension.
>>> Yes, that's the way
>> That's how it is, rupie.
>>
>>> so that the categories "morally permitted" and "morally prohibited"
>>> are not jointly exhaustive.
>> When there is no moral issue, rupie, they don't exhaust anything.
>> They are wholly inapplicable.
>
> That's not the way I understand the terms

You are wrong, rupie. You're wrong, and your towering
and arrogant youthful ego won't let you admit it.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye
>>>>>>>> afforded:
>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to
>>>>>>>>> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a
>>>>>>>>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as
>>>>>>>>> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a
>>>>>>>>> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely
>>>>>>>>> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
>>>>>>>>> starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their
>>>>>>>> bodies
>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die
>>>>>>>> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also
>>>>>>>> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live
>>>>>>>> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral
>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>> This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination.
>>>>>> No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are
>>>>>> morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal
>>>>>> parts. That such a false moral belief underlies
>>>>>> "veganism" is not in rational dispute.
>>>>> Why is it false,
>>>> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
>>>> animals, killer.
>>> Yes, I know.
>> Then, you know why the moral belief is false, too.
>
> No, I don't.

Then, you're stupid.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
>> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried to
>> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
>> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>>
>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did. I
>> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has led
>> me
>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will enlighen
>> me
>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>>
>
> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
> know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
> I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"

Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're at
it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will have
said something.


>> [..]
>>
>> > Singer's ethic is quite demanding regarding our obligations to the
>> > poor. In that sense it can be questioned whether it is "practicable".
>> > However, his views regarding animals are not so hard to put into
>> > practice. And there might be other theories consistent with equal
>> > consideration which do not entail that we have strong positive duties
>> > towards the poor, and so are not demanding in the way Singer's ethic
>> > is, and are also not demanding in the way a strong animal rights
>> > position is.
>>
>> Singer's attitude is that provided animals are treated kindly there is
>> nothing wrong with raising them and killing them for food, as in The
>> Salatin
>> Farm, which he visited. I have heard him quoted saying this on several
>> other
>> occasions.
>
> His opinion is a bit more nuanced than that, actually.

Everything is nuanced, but that's the essence of it. It's basically how most
people think.

> It's set forth
> in "Practical Ethics". He only thinks it's acceptable provided it is
> reasonable to assume that the animals do not have a concept of
> themselves as an entity existing over time.

That is essentially why everyone feels justified in the way we treat
animals. It captures one major component of the difference between humans
and other species, seeing oneself as mortal.

> And he also thinks there
> are dangers in having a policy which allows us to kill animals for
> food, since that will encourage us to think of them as resources to
> exploited and may tempt us to slide down the slippery slope to abuse.

That exact danger exists in all instances when we exploit other beings for
our own purposes, including human-human, organization-human,
employer-worker, etc.. That's why we have laws.

> In "Practical Ethics" he suggested it may be best to have a general
> policy of not killing animals for food. He may have changed his view
> somewhat since then.

I disagree with him. We should stop everything then.

>
>>I know you won't give me a direct answer, but I'll ask again
>> anyway, by what stretch of the imagination can this be construed as
>> "equal
>> consideration"? Equal to what? No slogans please.
>>
>
> Preference utilitarianism is consistent with equal consideration
> because it weighs all relevantly similar interests equally in
> evaluating outcomes. The idea is that if a being does not have a
> conception of itself as an entity existing over time, then it does not
> have an interest in continuing to live in the way that you or I do. So
> no wrong is done if we bring the being into existence, provide it with
> a pleasant life, and then kill it prematurely (assuming that killing
> it prematurely was inevitable if we were to bring the being into
> existence at all).

And this differs exactly how with the typical good-welfare-based way of
looking at human-animal relations?

> He also regards infanticide as sometimes acceptable
> on similar grounds.

I see no significant difference between infanticide and abortion, but that's
another issue entirely.


[..]
>>
>> >> > Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of
>> >> > "sentience"
>> >> > to me.
>>
>> >> It means the ability to experience sensations, like pain.
>>
>> > Yes, I agree. But I don't agree with you that every being has some
>> > degree of sentience. Only members of the animal kingdom are sentient,
>> > for example.
>>
>> Plants are not "beings".
>>
>
> Why not? What's a "being"?

A living creature, an animal. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you choose to
include plants as beings, we agree that there is a leap from plant "beings"
to animal "beings", and I contend that the difference is that animals have a
far more evolved ability to experience sensations than plants, and that's
what I call basic sentience.

>> >> 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?
>>
>> > Quite possibly, I don't know.
>>
>> Then surely a person devoted to "equal consideration" must assume that
>> they
>> do, along with most other insects. How can we live with ourselves knowing
>> this, and knowing what we must do to grow crops?
>>
>
> You can hold that whatever interests the insects may have are
> overridden by our need to sustain ourselves.

Is that what YOU hold? I'm lost as to how your way of thinking is leading
anywhere but the most common sense conclusions most of us already hold.


>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> > I'm not.
>>
>> Yes you are. You never say anything of substance, you repeat slogans and
>> recommend books.
>
> You haven't said any more of substance than me. There's nothing wrong
> with recommending books. You've recommended an article, and I thanked
> you for bringing it to my attention instead of trying to put you down
> for it.

I ordered the book you recommended and then attempted to read it. I also
probably thanked you at the time, if that's so important to you. The point
is not simply book recommendations, it's relying on them instead of
presenting your own conclusions. That's what we're supposed to be doing
here, making our own cases.

>
>> You want everyone here to view you as a big-shot
>> philosopher but you've never said anything that remotely entitles you to
>> such a status.
>>
>
> I don't care how people here view my level of competence in
> philosophy, any more than I care how they view my level of competence
> in mathematics.

I don't believe you.

> I have a realistic appraisal of my level of
> understanding of philosophy,

I don't believe that either, you vastly overestimate your level of
understanding, and underestimate others'..

> and people whose opinions matter confirm
> that appraisal. What goes on in this newsgroup is irrelevant.

Then why do spend your time here?

> My level of competence in philosophy is not relevant to our
> discussion. You brought it up, not me. I've never initiated a
> discussion about it. Just talk about the issues, not the people.

You're full of it. You have repeatedly stressed your belief that you have a
far more developed and deeper understanding of these issues than those of us
who disagree with you. You are condescending in the extreme.

>
>> > I'm engaging in perfectly rational discourse. Your reactions
>> > to my recommendations of interesting literature on the issues raised
>> > by what we're talking about are not very rational. I didn't react that
>> > way to your article recommendation. If you're not interested in
>> > philosophy, fine, why bother talking about it?
>>
>> I don't want to hear book recommendations in place of reasoned ideas.
>>
>
> I'm doing at least as much by way of supporting my position with
> reasoning as you are. I didn't object when you referred me to an
> article which you claimed contained a good critique of the argument
> from marginal cases, while not saying anything about the argument
> yourself. I was interested.

Referring to hyperlinks is not quite the same as referring to library books,
but I *did* take out your stupid book anyway.

I did speak about the article, I included what I considered the most
relevant paragraph, gave the page number and have commented on it several
times. The biocentric view holds that all animal species have sentience in
different degrees, and that is the basis for our views towards them. This
even agrees with preference utilitarianism as far as I can see. He also
separates the concepts of "ability" and "capability" and shows how this
essentially deals with the argument of marginal cases.

>> >> >> 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've made some reasonable effort at explaining them to you, but before
>> > we can get started in a sensible discussion you always dismiss what
>> > I'm saying as meaningless waffle. It's very hard to educate you.
>>
>> > I'm happy to have another go at it as long as you're prepared to be
>> > reasonable and polite and listen properly.
>>
>> You need to quit posturing and start making sense soon if you want to
>> earn
>> the admiration you so obviously crave.
>
> See above. I have no interest in gaining the admiration of anyone
> here. If I want recognition of my abilities, I will seek it from
> people whose opinions I respect.

Good then, goodbye and good riddance, dilettante.

>
>> You're not going to get it here by
>> demanding it.
>>
>
> This is irrelevant. As I said, I'm happy to have a go at explaining
> DeGrazia's ideas as long as you're prepared to be reasonable and
> polite and listen properly. That's nothing to do with recognizing my
> abilities as a philosopher. I'm just pointing out that if you're going
> to say "That's waffle, you're not really saying anything" at every
> step, then you're ineducable. That's not my problem.

Colossal Arrogance is your problem, you don't come to a newsgroup and
pontificate about "educating" people, about how to look at the world. This
isn't a math classroom, and you're not the professor, we're all peers here.

Also, you talk in circles and riddles using undefined terms. If you want to
attempt to translate mumbo-jumbo into common sense I'd be interested, if
you're just going to regurgitate mumbo-jumbo, then I am not interested.

>
>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > Well, I could have a go at trying to get you to understand them, but
>> > it would be like casting pearls before swine. But we can give it
>> > another go, I guess, if you want.
>>
>> I really don't care Rupert, at this point I have no confidence that you
>> have
>> the ability to articulate anything worthwhile. If you want to give it a
>> try
>> go ahead, but don't do it on my account.
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > No, you haven't made any good criticisms of him. Your reaction to him
>> > is based on your unfamiliarity with the different moral philosophies
>> > by means of which he illustrates the concept of equal consideration.
>>
>> I've lived a lot of years and counted many very bright, educated people
>> as
>> close friends, and we've spent many nights talking. I've never met anyone
>> worth listening to that needed to talk in riddles to make a point.
>>
>
> I'm reading a book about modular forms at the moment. I suppose by
> your logic that book is not worth reading?

That's just more condescending nonsense, moral philosophy is not higher
mathematics, it needs to be clear and understandable or what use is it?

> Look, I actually don't think this stuff is all that hard to
> understand. But you're clearly having trouble, and it's clearly due to
> your lack of familiarity with the importance differences between the
> different frameworks in moral philosophy. I don't mind trying to help
> you if you want. But you don't seem very interested, which is fine.

More condescending claptrap, either say something worth listening to or shut
the **** up.

>> >> If you want to change that perception of mine then
>> >> *you* do it.
>>
>> > Well, I quite enjoy trying to explain ideas to people, but they're
>> > usually paying me, or failing that, they're usually at least polite
>> > and appreciative of my efforts. I haven't found the experience of
>> > trying to educate you to be particularly rewarding or fruitful in the
>> > past. If you really want me to, then ask me politely and I'll give it
>> > another go. But if you don't care, then we'll just leave it.
>>
>> Don't do it on my account. From everything I've heard out of you so far,
>> you
>> are a pompous, self-important, pseudo-intellectual dilettante lacking the
>> understanding and/or the capability to articulate those ideas. If YOU
>> want
>> to erase that impression then I'm always willing to reevaluate, but I'm
>> not
>> holding my breath. You're nothing to me so I don't care. I wanted to
>> care, I
>> really did, but your interminable arrogance has turned me off.
>>
>
> I'm not arrogant.

AAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

> Or if I am,

You ****ing ARE!

> then you're just as arrogant when you
> tell me (sincerely, I presume) that I'm talking meaningless waffle.
> You call me arrogant and condescending, I'm no more so than you. You
> were the one who started expressing derogatory opinions of other
> people's intellectual abilities.

Rubbish, I can and do converse without talking down to people, provided
people talk plain English, not esoteric mumbo-jumbo.

[..]
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > It's obviously true. You demonstrated no such thing.
>>
>> Then please explain how the level of legal protection given to white
>> rhinos
>> could be elevated. As it is, anyone seen threatening them is shot on
>> sight
>> by game wardens.
>
> That is one interesting and very special example, yes.

Wonderful, why did I have to drag that admission out of you? So *some*
nonhuman animals have protection as strong as that given to human beings.

>> Many people would kill anyone who threatened a beloved pet.
>>
>
> We were talking about what the law says. The law only regards the pet
> as property.

We're talking about moral philosophy, how people view humans vs how they
view animals.

>> >> 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.
>>
>> > Not the humans we're talking about.
>>
>> All humans, save those that are brain-dead, and we usually pull the plug
>> on
>> them.
>
> Nonsense.

How is it nonsense?

>> You need to read the essay on the biocentric view, it refutes the
>> argument for marginal cases very effectively.
>
> Well, I certainly will read this essay, I'm looking forward to it. But
> I'll note that you've derided me for not myself summarizing the ideas
> in the books I refer to, and so far I only have your word for it that
> this essay refutes the argument effectively. Apparently you too
> sometimes like to let someone else do the talking for you.

See above.

"Rupert" > wrote
> Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
> processes which harm animals (to a lesser extent)

Not necessarily to a lesser extent, you only assume that. It's trivially
easy to show examples where that is not the case. That breaks the
utilitarian argument for veganism as morally imperative, which is how it is
always presented.

Please don't simply reply "rubbish" or something equally non-responsive like
you usually do. If you disagree then make a reasoned argument.

> is no reason at all
> why they should not be acting in a way that is morally preferable to
> the way that typical people act.

Since when is moral righeousness determined by comparison against some
typical outcome? What happened to the principle that veganism is purported
to be based on, that it is wrong to harm animals when there are
alternatives?

You are also omitting the part of vegan doctrine that says that it is WRONG
to consume animal products. I can consume animal products AND cause less
animal harm than most vegans, I guarantee it. Who is wrong then? What is
morally preferable then?

Veganism is too narrow-focused, it's also sleazy the way advocates vacillate
between rights and consequence arguments as it suits them.

On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 13, 10:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
> >>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
> >>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> >>>>>>>> ****witted question.
> >>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
> >>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
> >>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
> >>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
> >>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
> >>> Any rational observer could see that
> >> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
> >> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>
> > Yes, that's right
>
> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.

What do you suppose I care about, you pathetic imbecile?

As anyone with the slightest powers of observation and reasoning can
see, my question was a rhetorical one aimed at pointing out what a
pathetic, silly child you are. It did so very effectively, too.

Do you not understand that it is rather risible and pathetic when
someone who clearly has the maturity level of a twelve-year-old calls
someone else a "green, immature boy"?

green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
>>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
>>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
>>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
>>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
>>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
>>>>> Any rational observer could see that
>>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
>>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>>> Yes, that's right
>> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
>> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
>
> What do you suppose I care about,

rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
"Why would any adult care one way or the other?"

Rudy Canoza:
"Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"

rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
"I don't care in the least."

Rudy Canoza:
"That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
have posed your ****witted question."



You care that people care about it, rupie. That's why
you posed your ****witted question.

You stupid limp dick.

On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
> >> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried to
> >> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
> >> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>
> >> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did. I
> >> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has led
> >> me
> >> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will enlighen
> >> me
> >> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>
> > Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
> > theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
> > nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
> > know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
> > finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
> > your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
> > I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
> > telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>
> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're at
> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will have
> said something.
>

Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
of the actions available to us. A theory is consistent with equal
consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
sentient beings, regardless of species. Preference utilitarianism is
consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the relevantly
similar interests of any two sentient beings equally, regardless of
species. Peter Singer gives a discussion in Chapter 1 of "Animal
Liberation" of what's involved in doing this. Preference
utilitarianism is not the only theory that is consistent with equal
consideration because you could also have theories which are
deontological in the sense that they hold that there are some
constraints on how we should promote the good. These theories are
still consistent with equal consideration provided the constraints are
formulated in a way that gives equal weight to the relevantly similar
interests of all sentient beings regardless of species. Rawls' theory
of justice could be modified so as to be consistent with equal
consideration, so could libertarianism. This was all discussed in
DeGrazia's book, by the way. Would you like me to elaborate further?

> >> [..]
>
> >> > Singer's ethic is quite demanding regarding our obligations to the
> >> > poor. In that sense it can be questioned whether it is "practicable".
> >> > However, his views regarding animals are not so hard to put into
> >> > practice. And there might be other theories consistent with equal
> >> > consideration which do not entail that we have strong positive duties
> >> > towards the poor, and so are not demanding in the way Singer's ethic
> >> > is, and are also not demanding in the way a strong animal rights
> >> > position is.
>
> >> Singer's attitude is that provided animals are treated kindly there is
> >> nothing wrong with raising them and killing them for food, as in The
> >> Salatin
> >> Farm, which he visited. I have heard him quoted saying this on several
> >> other
> >> occasions.
>
> > His opinion is a bit more nuanced than that, actually.
>
> Everything is nuanced, but that's the essence of it. It's basically how most
> people think.
>

Singer's views are still highly radical with respect to the status
quo.

> > It's set forth
> > in "Practical Ethics". He only thinks it's acceptable provided it is
> > reasonable to assume that the animals do not have a concept of
> > themselves as an entity existing over time.
>
> That is essentially why everyone feels justified in the way we treat
> animals. It captures one major component of the difference between humans
> and other species, seeing oneself as mortal.
>

Well, maybe you would find Singer's philosophy congenial then. I work
with an organization called "Animal Liberation" which was founded
shortly after the publication of Singer's book of the same title, and
regards itself as having goals that are based on Singer's philosophy.
At the same time a lot of people who work with the organization are
strongly critical of Singer's philosophy and regard themselves as
animal rights advocates. I am inclined to think there are some
constraints on how we should promote the good, so to that extent I
disagree with Singer, but Singer has had a lot of influence on me.

> > And he also thinks there
> > are dangers in having a policy which allows us to kill animals for
> > food, since that will encourage us to think of them as resources to
> > exploited and may tempt us to slide down the slippery slope to abuse.
>
> That exact danger exists in all instances when we exploit other beings for
> our own purposes, including human-human, organization-human,
> employer-worker, etc.. That's why we have laws.
>

Quite.

> > In "Practical Ethics" he suggested it may be best to have a general
> > policy of not killing animals for food. He may have changed his view
> > somewhat since then.
>
> I disagree with him. We should stop everything then.
>

Well, I really don't see how that follows. He advocated such a policy
in "Practical Ethics" because he thought it would lead to the best
consequences. To argue that it generalizes to "everything", whatever
exactly you mean by that, you'd have to argue that that would have the
best consequences overall as well.

>
>
> >>I know you won't give me a direct answer, but I'll ask again
> >> anyway, by what stretch of the imagination can this be construed as
> >> "equal
> >> consideration"? Equal to what? No slogans please.
>
> > Preference utilitarianism is consistent with equal consideration
> > because it weighs all relevantly similar interests equally in
> > evaluating outcomes. The idea is that if a being does not have a
> > conception of itself as an entity existing over time, then it does not
> > have an interest in continuing to live in the way that you or I do. So
> > no wrong is done if we bring the being into existence, provide it with
> > a pleasant life, and then kill it prematurely (assuming that killing
> > it prematurely was inevitable if we were to bring the being into
> > existence at all).
>
> And this differs exactly how with the typical good-welfare-based way of
> looking at human-animal relations?
>

Some people call it a form of new welfarism. It's generally thought to
be more radical than standard welfarism. Have you read "Animal
Liberation"? Do you agree with all the recommendations he makes there?

> > He also regards infanticide as sometimes acceptable
> > on similar grounds.
>
> I see no significant difference between infanticide and abortion, but that's
> another issue entirely.
>
> [..]
>
>
>
> >> >> > Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of
> >> >> > "sentience"
> >> >> > to me.
>
> >> >> It means the ability to experience sensations, like pain.
>
> >> > Yes, I agree. But I don't agree with you that every being has some
> >> > degree of sentience. Only members of the animal kingdom are sentient,
> >> > for example.
>
> >> Plants are not "beings".
>
> > Why not? What's a "being"?
>
> A living creature,

A plant is a living creature.

> an animal. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you choose to
> include plants as beings, we agree that there is a leap from plant "beings"
> to animal "beings", and I contend that the difference is that animals have a
> far more evolved ability to experience sensations than plants, and that's
> what I call basic sentience.
>

Well, I would agree with you, quite a lot of animals are sentient,
possibly almost all of them, whereas no organisms that are not members
of the animal kingdom are.

> >> >> 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?
>
> >> > Quite possibly, I don't know.
>
> >> Then surely a person devoted to "equal consideration" must assume that
> >> they
> >> do, along with most other insects. How can we live with ourselves knowing
> >> this, and knowing what we must do to grow crops?
>
> > You can hold that whatever interests the insects may have are
> > overridden by our need to sustain ourselves.
>
> Is that what YOU hold? I'm lost as to how your way of thinking is leading
> anywhere but the most common sense conclusions most of us already hold.
>

I agree with many of the conclusions advocated in Singer's "Animal
Liberation" and DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously", which are
strongly critical of the status quo and which many would regard as
fairly radical, and which include the conclusion that most of us
should make major changes to our diet. There are many issues I am
uncertain about. Being strongly critical of the status quo quite
possibly is something that would follow from "common-sense thinking"
if people were a bit more aware of the status quo.

> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> > I'm not.
>
> >> Yes you are. You never say anything of substance, you repeat slogans and
> >> recommend books.
>
> > You haven't said any more of substance than me. There's nothing wrong
> > with recommending books. You've recommended an article, and I thanked
> > you for bringing it to my attention instead of trying to put you down
> > for it.
>
> I ordered the book you recommended and then attempted to read it. I also
> probably thanked you at the time, if that's so important to you. The point
> is not simply book recommendations, it's relying on them instead of
> presenting your own conclusions. That's what we're supposed to be doing
> here, making our own cases.
>

I've done just as much by way of presenting my conclusions as you
have.

>
>
> >> You want everyone here to view you as a big-shot
> >> philosopher but you've never said anything that remotely entitles you to
> >> such a status.
>
> > I don't care how people here view my level of competence in
> > philosophy, any more than I care how they view my level of competence
> > in mathematics.
>
> I don't believe you.
>

I don't care.

> > I have a realistic appraisal of my level of
> > understanding of philosophy,
>
> I don't believe that either, you vastly overestimate your level of
> understanding, and underestimate others'..
>

You're entitled to your view.

> > and people whose opinions matter confirm
>
> > that appraisal. What goes on in this newsgroup is irrelevant.
>
> Then why do spend your time here?
>

I'm not here to get recognition for my philosophical ability. I'm here
to discuss the issues.

> > My level of competence in philosophy is not relevant to our
> > discussion. You brought it up, not me. I've never initiated a
> > discussion about it. Just talk about the issues, not the people.
>
> You're full of it. You have repeatedly stressed your belief that you have a
> far more developed and deeper understanding of these issues than those of us
> who disagree with you.

In response to attempts to denigrate my level of understanding which I
regard as silly and irrelevant to the real issues, yes, I have
expressed my own estimation of my level of understanding. It's not
really relevant. But people like Ball constantly make it an issue.

When you tell me that I'm talking pseudo-intellectual waffle, I
express my belief that you don't really grasp the ideas I'm trying to
discuss with you. I'm sorry you find that condescending and tiresome.
The feeling is mutual. You are every bit as condescending as me.

> You are condescending in the extreme.
>

Much less so than all the antis here, including you.

>
>
> >> > I'm engaging in perfectly rational discourse. Your reactions
> >> > to my recommendations of interesting literature on the issues raised
> >> > by what we're talking about are not very rational. I didn't react that
> >> > way to your article recommendation. If you're not interested in
> >> > philosophy, fine, why bother talking about it?
>
> >> I don't want to hear book recommendations in place of reasoned ideas.
>
> > I'm doing at least as much by way of supporting my position with
> > reasoning as you are. I didn't object when you referred me to an
> > article which you claimed contained a good critique of the argument
> > from marginal cases, while not saying anything about the argument
> > yourself. I was interested.
>
> Referring to hyperlinks is not quite the same as referring to library books,
> but I *did* take out your stupid book anyway.
>
> I did speak about the article, I included what I considered the most
> relevant paragraph, gave the page number and have commented on it several
> times. The biocentric view holds that all animal species have sentience in
> different degrees, and that is the basis for our views towards them. This
> even agrees with preference utilitarianism as far as I can see. He also
> separates the concepts of "ability" and "capability" and shows how this
> essentially deals with the argument of marginal cases.
>

I'll have to take a look.

> >> >> >> 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've made some reasonable effort at explaining them to you, but before
> >> > we can get started in a sensible discussion you always dismiss what
> >> > I'm saying as meaningless waffle. It's very hard to educate you.
>
> >> > I'm happy to have another go at it as long as you're prepared to be
> >> > reasonable and polite and listen properly.
>
> >> You need to quit posturing and start making sense soon if you want to
> >> earn
> >> the admiration you so obviously crave.
>
> > See above. I have no interest in gaining the admiration of anyone
> > here. If I want recognition of my abilities, I will seek it from
> > people whose opinions I respect.
>
> Good then, goodbye and good riddance, dilettante.
>

Why should I leave? Why shouldn't I comment on the arguments that are
brought up here if I feel like it? If gaining admiration is the only
possible motive for being here, then may we assume that you are here
in order to gain admiration?

>
>
> >> You're not going to get it here by
> >> demanding it.
>
> > This is irrelevant. As I said, I'm happy to have a go at explaining
> > DeGrazia's ideas as long as you're prepared to be reasonable and
> > polite and listen properly. That's nothing to do with recognizing my
> > abilities as a philosopher. I'm just pointing out that if you're going
> > to say "That's waffle, you're not really saying anything" at every
> > step, then you're ineducable. That's not my problem.
>
> Colossal Arrogance is your problem, you don't come to a newsgroup and
> pontificate about "educating" people, about how to look at the world. This
> isn't a math classroom, and you're not the professor, we're all peers here.
>

I'd be more than happy to interact on the basis that we're all peers.
You were the one who first departed from that, telling me that I was
talking pseudo-intellectual waffle. Ball also initiated the departure
from that basis of interaction by telling me that I was a dilettante
who didn't really understand these issues. You people are entitled to
your views, but if you're going to express them then I don't mind
telling you what I think about these matters.

There's no reason why we can't have a simple exchange of ideas without
denigrating anyone else's abilities or bringing up the issue of how
different people's levels of understanding compare. You people are the
ones who make that impossible. I'm not the one who's arrogant.

> Also, you talk in circles and riddles using undefined terms. If you want to
> attempt to translate mumbo-jumbo into common sense I'd be interested, if
> you're just going to regurgitate mumbo-jumbo, then I am not interested.
>

I'm sorry that that's the way it appears to you. To understand the
notion of "equal consideration" it helps to have some familiarity with
the different frameworks that have been considered in moral
philosophy. It's not as difficult to understand as higher mathematics
and I think any reasonably intelligent person should be able to
understand it, but it may take some time if you're not all that
familiar with moral philosophy. I've been trying to discuss the
concept with you, but you haven't been very receptive or polite.
Perhaps my explanations could be better, but is that really any reason
for being rude? You think it's all pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo,
well that's fine, you're entitled to that view. Maybe I'm just being
silly and I've persuaded myself that the concept means something when
it doesn't really mean anything. Conceivably, that could be the case.
But I think there are some facts which most people would agree make
that a little implausible. If you want to have another go at trying to
understand where I'm coming from, I don't mind giving it another go
provided you make some effort to be polite. Or if you don't, that's
fine as well, we can agree to disagree. I think I have a lot more
cause to find you condescending, arrogant and tiresome than you have
to find me so.

>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> > Well, I could have a go at trying to get you to understand them, but
> >> > it would be like casting pearls before swine. But we can give it
> >> > another go, I guess, if you want.
>
> >> I really don't care Rupert, at this point I have no confidence that you
> >> have
> >> the ability to articulate anything worthwhile. If you want to give it a
> >> try
> >> go ahead, but don't do it on my account.
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> > No, you haven't made any good criticisms of him. Your reaction to him
> >> > is based on your unfamiliarity with the different moral philosophies
> >> > by means of which he illustrates the concept of equal consideration.
>
> >> I've lived a lot of years and counted many very bright, educated people
> >> as
> >> close friends, and we've spent many nights talking. I've never met anyone
> >> worth listening to that needed to talk in riddles to make a point.
>
> > I'm reading a book about modular forms at the moment. I suppose by
> > your logic that book is not worth reading?
>
> That's just more condescending nonsense, moral philosophy is not higher
> mathematics, it needs to be clear and understandable or what use is it?
>

Higher mathematics is clear and understandable. The essence of it is
that it's absolutely clear and precise. But it takes time for most
people to understand it. There could be some other useful fields which
are like that as well, and some of them could be part of philosophy. I
don't think moral philosophy is anywhere near as difficult to
understand as higher mathematics, but I think that some aspects of it
take time to get on top of.

It really is rich your calling me "condescending" just because I tell
you I'm reading a book about modular forms. I suppose there's nothing
in the least condescending about you?

> > Look, I actually don't think this stuff is all that hard to
> > understand. But you're clearly having trouble, and it's clearly due to
> > your lack of familiarity with the importance differences between the
> > different frameworks in moral philosophy. I don't mind trying to help
> > you if you want. But you don't seem very interested, which is fine.
>
> More condescending claptrap, either say something worth listening to or shut
> the **** up.
>

Why should I bother trying to say something that you find worth
listening to when you don't feel any need to make any effort at basic
courtesy? There's nothing condescending about what I said, it's just
the facts as I see them. There's no shame in not being all that
familiar with moral philosophy. What I said is nowhere near as
condescending as the attitude you're taking towards me.

> >> >> If you want to change that perception of mine then
> >> >> *you* do it.
>
> >> > Well, I quite enjoy trying to explain ideas to people, but they're
> >> > usually paying me, or failing that, they're usually at least polite
> >> > and appreciative of my efforts. I haven't found the experience of
> >> > trying to educate you to be particularly rewarding or fruitful in the
> >> > past. If you really want me to, then ask me politely and I'll give it
> >> > another go. But if you don't care, then we'll just leave it.
>
> >> Don't do it on my account. From everything I've heard out of you so far,
> >> you
> >> are a pompous, self-important, pseudo-intellectual dilettante lacking the
> >> understanding and/or the capability to articulate those ideas. If YOU
> >> want
> >> to erase that impression then I'm always willing to reevaluate, but I'm
> >> not
> >> holding my breath. You're nothing to me so I don't care. I wanted to
> >> care, I
> >> really did, but your interminable arrogance has turned me off.
>
> > I'm not arrogant.
>
> AAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Or if I am,
>
> You ****ing ARE!
>
> > then you're just as arrogant when you
> > tell me (sincerely, I presume) that I'm talking meaningless waffle.
> > You call me arrogant and condescending, I'm no more so than you. You
> > were the one who started expressing derogatory opinions of other
> > people's intellectual abilities.
>
> Rubbish, I can and do converse without talking down to people, provided
> people talk plain English, not esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
>

I can and do converse without talking down to people too. I do it all
the time. And I don't think I'm particularly "talking down" to you
either, just pointing out the obvious fact that there are some areas
of moral philosophy you're not all that familiar with and that this
might be having a bearing on your reaction to DeGrazia. I'm not
talking down to you to anything like the extent that you're talking
down to me. If you're justified in talking down to me and you're not
arrogant, then it seems only fair to say the same about me.

> [..]
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> > It's obviously true. You demonstrated no such thing.
>
> >> Then please explain how the level of legal protection given to white
> >> rhinos
> >> could be elevated. As it is, anyone seen threatening them is shot on
> >> sight
> >> by game wardens.
>
> > That is one interesting and very special example, yes.
>
> Wonderful, why did I have to drag that admission out of you? So *some*
> nonhuman animals have protection as strong as that given to human beings.
>

Well, I'm not sure about that. Do those rhinos have an absolute and
unconditional guarantee that they will never have their liberty
arbitrarily taken away from them? But yes, you have given an example
of some nonhuman animals having very strong legal protection.

> >> Many people would kill anyone who threatened a beloved pet.
>
> > We were talking about what the law says. The law only regards the pet
> > as property.
>
> We're talking about moral philosophy, how people view humans vs how they
> view animals.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> > Not the humans we're talking about.
>
> >> All humans, save those that are brain-dead, and we usually pull the plug
> >> on
> >> them.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> How is it nonsense?
>

It's nonsense that all humans except those in persistent vegetative
states have the highest level of sentience in the animal kingdom.

> >> You need to read the essay on the biocentric view, it refutes the
> >> argument for marginal cases very effectively.
>
> > Well, I certainly will read this essay, I'm looking forward to it. But
> > I'll note that you've derided me for not myself summarizing the ideas
> > in the books I refer to, and so far I only have your word for it that
> > this essay refutes the argument effectively. Apparently you too
> > sometimes like to let someone else do the talking for you.
>
> See above.

On Jun 17, 1:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> >>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
> >>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
> >>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
> >>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
> >>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
> >>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
> >>>>> Any rational observer could see that
> >>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
> >>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
> >>> Yes, that's right
> >> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
> >> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
>
> > What do you suppose I care about,
>
> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
> "Why would any adult care one way or the other?"
>

Which is obviously a rhetorical question whose main point is: why are
you such a stupid pathetic little child who makes a big song and dance
about people being "queer", as if it mattered to any rational person
in the least, and when furthermore David Harrison's being queer is
most likely just yet another silly fantasy you made up anyway?

> Rudy Canoza:
> "Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"
>

Quite egregiously missing the point.

> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
> "I don't care in the least."
>

Patiently trying to explain it to poor unfortunate Ball.

> Rudy Canoza:
> "That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
> have posed your ****witted question."
>

Manifesting extraordinary poor ability to understand the point of the
question.

> You care that people care about it, rupie.

"People" do not care about it, Ball. Ridiculous, pathetic twelve-year-
olds such as yourself appear to get excited about it, yes, but they
are a very small minority. And I do not care about this, I merely
express my astonishment at the level of childishness and how any adult
could be so pathetic. It is an occasion of surprise and contempt for
me, it is not an occasion for any notable emotional response.


> That's why
> you posed your ****witted question.
>
> You stupid limp dick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 15, 11:52 am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 10:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 2:16 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 8:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > 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,
>
> > > > > > > > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > > > > > > > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> > > > > > > Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> > > > > > > worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>
> > > > > > Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.
>
> > > > > Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
> > > > > mathematical research.
>
> > > > No. If you're spending your "professional" time bothering people as a
> > > > <snicker> telemarketer, then your Ph.D. obviously was a waste for the
> > > > taxpayer.
>
> > > Incidentally, we are not bothering people.
>
> > You are. Telemarketing = bothering people.
>
> We're not bothering people. Most of the people I speak with are
> perfectly polite to me, and quite a few of them are pleased to receive
> my call. But never mind, I'm sure you know more about my job than I
> do.
>
> If it's so contemptible to make a habit of annoying people, then what
> are we to say about you?
>
> > > Anyway, I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. It just means
> > > this is the best job that I've managed to find within two months of
> > > job search.
>
> > With a Ph.D. in maths. Priceless!
>
> Well, I'm glad you find it entertaining, Ball, but I really don't see
> what's so remarkable about it. It's only been two months. It takes
> time to find jobs which require Ph.D.'s. I'm mainly looking for jobs
> in financial mathematics, there aren't many entry-level positions like
> that, it's more about networking. I have a friend who's just finished
> his thesis who's in the same boat.
>
> > > > > > > Now you're
> > > > > > > saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> > > > > > > more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>
> > > > > > And that's true.
>
> > > > > If it were
>
> > > > It is.
>
> > > You don't have a clue one way or the other
>
> > One way or ANother, you semi-literate slag.
>
> "One way or the other" is a perfectly legitimate construction, you
> desperate buffoon.
>
> > But I do have a clue - in fact, much more than that.
>
> Well, this is quite a common situation, Ball. You've formed a
> derogatory opinion about someone, based on your desperate need to do
> so, and confused it with a rational, evidence-based belief.
>
> Incidentally, supposing that I am just an average Ph.D. student, there
> is no shame in that. People who are capable of doing original research
> in mathematics are exceptional.
>
> The bottom line is, I have a long and proven track record of
> outstanding mathematical achievement. And you, of all people, in your
> desperation to denigrate people on any pretext whatsoever, are trying
> to denigrate my mathematical ability, obviously on the basis of no
> knowledge about the matter whatsoever. It's utterly absurd and
> pathetic.
>
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> > > > > > > I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>
> > > > > > So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
> > > > > > You're unethical in the extreme.
>
> > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > Completely.
>
> > > I am more ethical than you
>
> > You are wholly unethical, not least because you lie about your lack of
> > ethics.
>
> Let's take a close look at this, Ball.
>
> In my conduct on the newsgroups, I treat people with basic decency,
> courtesy, and respect, and don't gratuitously insult them or
> desperately attempt to put them down on any pretext whatever. When I
> interact with other decent people, I have civilized and interesting
> conversations. My interest in mainly in the issues, not the people. I
> don't try to put people down for having a history of mental illness. I
> don't talk silly and childish nonsense about people being "impotent"
> and "queer". I don't call women "sluts" or "prostitutes". In all these
> respects, I am much better than you.
>
> I have made significant changes to my lifestyle for the purpose of
> reducing my contribution to the amount of suffering in the world, and
> also by way of alleviating it. I am vegan and volunteer a significant
> amount of time towards political activism aimed at improving
> conditions for animals. I volunteer for charities like Oxfam and
> UNICEF and my contributions are highly valued. I also donate a very
> large portion of my income to these charities. I am seeking work as a
> quantitative analyst, thereby sacrificing my desire to have an
> intellectually fulfilling career doing research in mathematics. The
> reason I am doing this is that it will increase my opportunities to
> contribute to these charities and thereby reduce suffering. I would
> not be motivated to do this for any other reason. In all these
> respects, most people would agree, I am somewhat more morally
> admirable than you.
>
> I am at least as ethical as you in all other aspects of life. I show
> love and consideration to my family and friends. I respect the rights
> of others. I fulfil my obligations to my employer and make an effort
> to do as good as job as I can.
>
> But somehow you get the idea that I am completely unethical. Well, you
> are entitled to hold that view. But it doesn't stand up to the
> slightest bit of rational scrutiny. You only hold that view because
> you have a desperate need to hold derogatory views about others which
> distorts your thinking. It's a joke.
>
> > > > > > > I'm working in a
> > > > > > > telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>
> > > > > > So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
> > > > > > sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>
> > > > > I only handed it in a couple of months ago.
>
> > > > Might as well have been five years.
>
> > > As usual
>
> > !!!
>
> What are the exclamation marks for, you weirdo? You think you've made
> some sort of significant point?
>
> Okay, so you think I'll be stuck in telemarketing for the next five
> years. Well, it might be, I don't have a crystal ball. But it really
> seems quite unlikely to me, I don't see any rational grounds for
> believing it. I've just completed a good Ph.D. thesis in maths, and I
> have many highly marketable skills, such as teaching, research,
> mathematical skills, and computer programming. I might add that I am
> also doing a lot of maths tutoring work and am getting paid to give a
> lecture in animal ethics once every six months. What do *you* think
> are the rational grounds for believing that I'll be stuck in
> telemarketing for the next five years? Isn't it just that you're
> desperate to believe bad things about other people, regardless of the
> facts?
>
> And supposing I *am* stuck in telemarketing for the next five years,
> why is that of the slightest interest? You think it somehow reflects
> badly on me? My achievements and my ability are undeniable, they are
> certainly at least as good as yours. If, contrary to what any sensible
> person would think at all likely, I get stuck in telemarketing for the
> next five years, it will be due to bad luck or personal choice, not
> some inadequacy.
>
> > > > > > > I spend almost all of my spare
>
> > > > > > !!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > > time engaged in study and research.
>
> > > > > > Isn't that special.
>
> > > > > You're such a joke. I'm a productive mathematician.
>
> > > > You're a worthless, dinner-interrupting telemarketer - i.e., scum.
> > > > People hate your guts.
>
> > > No.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Sigh. Trying to educate you to a more rational view of the situation
> is not very productive, is it?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > > > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> > > > > > > This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>
> > > > > > I am, and I am correct.
>
> > > > > 'Fraid not.
>
> > > > I am correct.
>
> > > You think you are
>
> > I am.
>
> Well, that's really convincing, Ball.
>
> Why don't you try and get paid work lecturing in animal ethics, or
> getting a publication in the field of ethics in a peer-reviewed
> journal. See how you go.
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > > > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> > > > > > > You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>
> > > > > > It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>
> > > > > The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that matter is
>
> > > > The fact that you're here.
>
> > > That has no bearing on the matter at all.
>
> > It has all the bearing in the world.
>
> Not in the eyes of any rational person, no.
>
> > The fact that you spend a HUGE
> > amount of time here - you really are a wheezy windbag - instead of
> > doing research speaks volumes.
>
> The amount of time I spend here and the average word count of my posts
> are similar to yours, and you manage to hold down a full-time job. I
> spend a lot of time doing mathematical study and research. I completed
> my Ph.D. unusually quickly while being just as active here as I am
> now, and it was of high quality. I am continuing to make progress with
> my research. Your thinking that my participation here gives you some
> kind of insight into how talented and productive I am as a researcher
> says a lot more about you than about me.
>
> The claim under question was that I will not win the Fields Medal.
> That's fairly likely, yes, although it's not a certainty as you claim.
> I am in a position to comment on the matter, your opinion is utterly
> ignorant and worthless. There is absolutely no shame in not winning
> the Fields Medal. There are plenty of excellent, world-class
> mathematicians who have not won the Fields Medal. Your saying I won't
> win the Fields Medal as if you had a clue or as if this was some kind
> of really significant point is utterly absurd.

green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
>>>>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
>>>>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
>>>>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
>>>>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
>>>>>>> Any rational observer could see that
>>>>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
>>>>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>>>>> Yes, that's right
>>>> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
>>>> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
>>> What do you suppose I care about,
>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>> "Why would any adult care one way or the other?"
>>
>
> Which is obviously a rhetorical question

No - which shows you care. QED.



>> Rudy Canoza:
>> "Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"
>>
>
> Quite egregiously missing the point.

Nope.



>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>> "I don't care in the least."
>>
>
> Patiently trying

Incompetently lying.


>> Rudy Canoza:
>> "That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
>> have posed your ****witted question."
>>
>
> Manifesting extraordinary

Rather ordinary ability to catch you out.


>> You care that people care about it, rupie.
>
> "People" do not care about it

You do - that's why you posed your ****witted question.


>> That's why
>> you posed your ****witted question.
>>
>> You stupid limp dick.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried to
>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did. I
>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has led
>>>> me
>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will enlighen
>>>> me
>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're at
>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will have
>> said something.
>>
>
> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
> of the actions available to us.

Which doesn't even attempt to say why the preferences
of non-human entities ought be given any weight as all.
As soon as they attempt it, they get circular.

****ing bullshit from start to finish. Among other
things, it can - and has - led to some half-witted
self-styled "philosopher" trying to show that the
(il)logic of the larder is *correct*: that we "ought"
to want to cause livestock to exist, because the amount
of utility they experience up to the point we kill them
exceeds the disutility they experience from being killed.

You ****ing ****, rupie - you're trying to help that
goddamned ****ing pervert ****wit David Harrison.

On Jun 17, 2:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 1:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
> >>>>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
> >>>>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
> >>>>>>> Any rational observer could see that
> >>>>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
> >>>>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
> >>>>> Yes, that's right
> >>>> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
> >>>> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
> >>> What do you suppose I care about,
> >> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
> >> "Why would any adult care one way or the other?"
>
> > Which is obviously a rhetorical question
>
> No - which shows you care. QED.
>

It really is a marvel how anyone could hold such an opinion unless
they were of sub-human intelligence.

> >> Rudy Canoza:
> >> "Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"
>
> > Quite egregiously missing the point.
>
> Nope.
>
> >> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
> >> "I don't care in the least."
>
> > Patiently trying
>
> Incompetently lying.
>
> >> Rudy Canoza:
> >> "That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
> >> have posed your ****witted question."
>
> > Manifesting extraordinary
>
> Rather ordinary ability to catch you out.
>
> >> You care that people care about it, rupie.
>
> > "People" do not care about it
>
> You do - that's why you posed your ****witted question.
>

See, it's interesting. I mean, one would presume you have some desire
not to make a complete ignoramus of yourself. In which case, you've
evidently succeeded in completely convincing yourself of your utterly
absurd view of the matter, and totally lack insight into how palpably
ridiculous you are.

>
>
> >> That's why
> >> you posed your ****witted question.
>
> >> You stupid limp dick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 1:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
>>>>>>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
>>>>>>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
>>>>>>>>> Any rational observer could see that
>>>>>>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
>>>>>>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>>>>>>> Yes, that's right
>>>>>> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
>>>>>> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
>>>>> What do you suppose I care about,
>>>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>>>> "Why would any adult care one way or the other?"
>>> Which is obviously a rhetorical question
>> No - which shows you care. QED.
>>
>
> It really is a marvel

No, it's really no big deal, rupie.


>>>> Rudy Canoza:
>>>> "Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"
>>> Quite egregiously missing the point.
>> Nope.
>>
>>>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>>>> "I don't care in the least."
>>> Patiently trying
>> Incompetently lying.
>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza:
>>>> "That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
>>>> have posed your ****witted question."
>>> Manifesting extraordinary
>> Rather ordinary ability to catch you out.
>>
>>>> You care that people care about it, rupie.
>>> "People" do not care about it
>> You do - that's why you posed your ****witted question.
>>
>
> See, it's interesting.

To a psychotic, maybe. Not to normal folks.


>>>> That's why
>>>> you posed your ****witted question.
>>>> You stupid limp dick.

On Jun 17, 12:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
> > processes which harm animals (to a lesser extent)
>
> Not necessarily to a lesser extent, you only assume that. It's trivially
> easy to show examples where that is not the case.

Well, I don't know that anyone's actually shown an example, but I
daresay examples exist, yes.

My claim was that a vegan diet causes less harm than the typical diet.

> That breaks the
> utilitarian argument for veganism as morally imperative, which is how it is
> always presented.
>

You could make an argument that there are some limits on the extent to
which we should financially support unnecessary harm and that veganism
is one way, not necessarily only the way, of respecting those limits.
That's the argument I've been making ever since I first got here. Ball
has never said anything to touch this argument.

> Please don't simply reply "rubbish" or something equally non-responsive like
> you usually do. If you disagree then make a reasoned argument.
>
> > is no reason at all
> > why they should not be acting in a way that is morally preferable to
> > the way that typical people act.
>
> Since when is moral righeousness determined by comparison against some
> typical outcome? What happened to the principle that veganism is purported
> to be based on, that it is wrong to harm animals when there are
> alternatives?
>

Well, we could retain that principle, with the proviso that perhaps
there are some limits to our obligation to avoid harm, when the
alternatives are sufficiently difficult. That's a possibility, we may
choose not to say that, in which case presumably we have to grow all
our own food. But we could say it, and Ball's never said anything to
touch this stance.

> You are also omitting the part of vegan doctrine that says that it is WRONG
> to consume animal products. I can consume animal products AND cause less
> animal harm than most vegans, I guarantee it.

Well, assuming that's the case, fine. You'll have to ask other people
to defend this part of the "vegan doctrine", I don't agree with it and
I am happy to concede that Ball has made good criticisms of that. But
I don't think he's adequately defending his view that there are no
good moral reasons for veganism (or some diet similar in its impact on
animals) at all.

> Who is wrong then? What is
> morally preferable then?
>
> Veganism is too narrow-focused, it's also sleazy the way advocates vacillate
> between rights and consequence arguments as it suits them.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye
>>>>>>>> afforded:
>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to
>>>>>>>>> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a
>>>>>>>>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as
>>>>>>>>> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a
>>>>>>>>> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely
>>>>>>>>> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
>>>>>>>>> starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their
>>>>>>>> bodies
>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die
>>>>>>>> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also
>>>>>>>> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live
>>>>>>>> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral
>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>> This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination.
>>>>>> No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are
>>>>>> morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal
>>>>>> parts. That such a false moral belief underlies
>>>>>> "veganism" is not in rational dispute.
>>>>> Why is it false,
>>>> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
>>>> animals, killer.
>>> Yes, I know.
>> Then, you know why the moral belief is false, too.
> Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
> processes which harm animals

No, cocksucker - not "[merely] financially support",
you shitbag. They *participate* in those processes,
rupie. When you write "[merely] financially support",
you are trying to downplay and minimize their role.
But their role is:

- active
- fully aware
- voluntary
- repeated
- unnecessary

Every time, you cocksucker, that you write "[merely]
financially support", you're trying to create the
illusion that their participation is passive, something
they can't help, something they don't want to do. But
we have shown, conclusively and irrefutably, that it is
anything *but* that, rupie, you filthy shit-faced yob.
Their participation has these qualities that make
them fully and undeniably morally culpable in animal
deaths:

- active
- fully aware
- voluntary
- repeated
- unnecessary

That is, rupie, you mealy-mouthed coward, they *CHOOSE*
to participate in animal-killing processes.

Stop writing "[merely] financially support", rupie, you
little smarmy thimbleful of shit.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
>> >> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried
>> >> > to
>> >> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
>> >> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>>
>> >> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did.
>> >> I
>> >> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has
>> >> led
>> >> me
>> >> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will
>> >> enlighen
>> >> me
>> >> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>>
>> > Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
>> > theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
>> > nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
>> > know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
>> > finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
>> > your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
>> > I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
>> > telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>>
>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're
>> at
>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will
>> have
>> said something.
>>
>
> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
> of the actions available to us.

What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death for another
sentient being, like a chicken?

> A theory is consistent with equal
> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> sentient beings, regardless of species.

What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the chicken?

> Preference utilitarianism is
> consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the relevantly
> similar interests of any two sentient beings equally, regardless of
> species.

Chickens want to live, I want to eat chicken. Who wins?

> Peter Singer gives a discussion in Chapter 1 of "Animal
> Liberation" of what's involved in doing this. Preference
> utilitarianism is not the only theory that is consistent with equal
> consideration because you could also have theories which are
> deontological in the sense that they hold that there are some
> constraints on how we should promote the good. These theories are
> still consistent with equal consideration provided the constraints are
> formulated in a way that gives equal weight to the relevantly similar
> interests of all sentient beings regardless of species. Rawls' theory
> of justice could be modified so as to be consistent with equal
> consideration, so could libertarianism. This was all discussed in
> DeGrazia's book, by the way. Would you like me to elaborate further?

It's too theoretical, I want concrete examples. How exactly does "equal
consideration of relevantly similar interests" impact my ability to
financially support processes which, while allowing me to enjoy the
lifestyle I prefer, simultaneously kills animals? Since the animals are not
conscious of their mortality, may I weigh my own interest in the comforts of
life over their instinct/interest to survive?

>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> > Singer's ethic is quite demanding regarding our obligations to the
>> >> > poor. In that sense it can be questioned whether it is
>> >> > "practicable".
>> >> > However, his views regarding animals are not so hard to put into
>> >> > practice. And there might be other theories consistent with equal
>> >> > consideration which do not entail that we have strong positive
>> >> > duties
>> >> > towards the poor, and so are not demanding in the way Singer's ethic
>> >> > is, and are also not demanding in the way a strong animal rights
>> >> > position is.
>>
>> >> Singer's attitude is that provided animals are treated kindly there is
>> >> nothing wrong with raising them and killing them for food, as in The
>> >> Salatin
>> >> Farm, which he visited. I have heard him quoted saying this on several
>> >> other
>> >> occasions.
>>
>> > His opinion is a bit more nuanced than that, actually.
>>
>> Everything is nuanced, but that's the essence of it. It's basically how
>> most
>> people think.
>>
>
> Singer's views are still highly radical with respect to the status
> quo.

Maybe some of them, but not the ones I just described.

>> > It's set forth
>> > in "Practical Ethics". He only thinks it's acceptable provided it is
>> > reasonable to assume that the animals do not have a concept of
>> > themselves as an entity existing over time.
>>
>> That is essentially why everyone feels justified in the way we treat
>> animals. It captures one major component of the difference between humans
>> and other species, seeing oneself as mortal.
>>
>
> Well, maybe you would find Singer's philosophy congenial then. I work
> with an organization called "Animal Liberation" which was founded
> shortly after the publication of Singer's book of the same title, and
> regards itself as having goals that are based on Singer's philosophy.
> At the same time a lot of people who work with the organization are
> strongly critical of Singer's philosophy and regard themselves as
> animal rights advocates. I am inclined to think there are some
> constraints on how we should promote the good, so to that extent I
> disagree with Singer, but Singer has had a lot of influence on me.

Everyone thinks there are constraints on how we should promote the good,
such as not experimenting on humans against their will to advance medical
science. That's normal.

>> > And he also thinks there
>> > are dangers in having a policy which allows us to kill animals for
>> > food, since that will encourage us to think of them as resources to
>> > exploited and may tempt us to slide down the slippery slope to abuse.
>>
>> That exact danger exists in all instances when we exploit other beings
>> for
>> our own purposes, including human-human, organization-human,
>> employer-worker, etc.. That's why we have laws.
>>
>
> Quite.
>
>> > In "Practical Ethics" he suggested it may be best to have a general
>> > policy of not killing animals for food. He may have changed his view
>> > somewhat since then.
>>
>> I disagree with him. We should stop everything then.
>>
>
> Well, I really don't see how that follows. He advocated such a policy
> in "Practical Ethics" because he thought it would lead to the best
> consequences. To argue that it generalizes to "everything", whatever
> exactly you mean by that, you'd have to argue that that would have the
> best consequences overall as well.

The best overall consequences [for the most beings] would be for man to
disappear from this planet.

>
>>
>>
>> >>I know you won't give me a direct answer, but I'll ask again
>> >> anyway, by what stretch of the imagination can this be construed as
>> >> "equal
>> >> consideration"? Equal to what? No slogans please.
>>
>> > Preference utilitarianism is consistent with equal consideration
>> > because it weighs all relevantly similar interests equally in
>> > evaluating outcomes. The idea is that if a being does not have a
>> > conception of itself as an entity existing over time, then it does not
>> > have an interest in continuing to live in the way that you or I do. So
>> > no wrong is done if we bring the being into existence, provide it with
>> > a pleasant life, and then kill it prematurely (assuming that killing
>> > it prematurely was inevitable if we were to bring the being into
>> > existence at all).
>>
>> And this differs exactly how with the typical good-welfare-based way of
>> looking at human-animal relations?
>>
>
> Some people call it a form of new welfarism. It's generally thought to
> be more radical than standard welfarism. Have you read "Animal
> Liberation"? Do you agree with all the recommendations he makes there?

I don't want to get into referring to books at every turn. My view is that
human beings, due to their unique nature and abilities, are granted the most
fundamental of rights.

>> > He also regards infanticide as sometimes acceptable
>> > on similar grounds.
>>
>> I see no significant difference between infanticide and abortion, but
>> that's
>> another issue entirely.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of
>> >> >> > "sentience"
>> >> >> > to me.
>>
>> >> >> It means the ability to experience sensations, like pain.
>>
>> >> > Yes, I agree. But I don't agree with you that every being has some
>> >> > degree of sentience. Only members of the animal kingdom are
>> >> > sentient,
>> >> > for example.
>>
>> >> Plants are not "beings".
>>
>> > Why not? What's a "being"?
>>
>> A living creature,
>
> A plant is a living creature.

I already conceded the point, I don't care if you want to call plants
beings. It's semantics.

>> an animal. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you choose to
>> include plants as beings, we agree that there is a leap from plant
>> "beings"
>> to animal "beings", and I contend that the difference is that animals
>> have a
>> far more evolved ability to experience sensations than plants, and that's
>> what I call basic sentience.
>>
>
> Well, I would agree with you, quite a lot of animals are sentient,
> possibly almost all of them, whereas no organisms that are not members
> of the animal kingdom are.

Probably not, but that rests on the definition of a word, which may vary.
Plants certainly sense light and heat.

>
>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> >> > Quite possibly, I don't know.
>>
>> >> Then surely a person devoted to "equal consideration" must assume that
>> >> they
>> >> do, along with most other insects. How can we live with ourselves
>> >> knowing
>> >> this, and knowing what we must do to grow crops?
>>
>> > You can hold that whatever interests the insects may have are
>> > overridden by our need to sustain ourselves.
>>
>> Is that what YOU hold? I'm lost as to how your way of thinking is leading
>> anywhere but the most common sense conclusions most of us already hold.
>>
>
> I agree with many of the conclusions advocated in Singer's "Animal
> Liberation" and DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously", which are
> strongly critical of the status quo and which many would regard as
> fairly radical, and which include the conclusion that most of us
> should make major changes to our diet. There are many issues I am
> uncertain about. Being strongly critical of the status quo quite
> possibly is something that would follow from "common-sense thinking"
> if people were a bit more aware of the status quo.

I believe that since animals can suffer as we can therefore we are morally
obliged towards ones in our care to make every effort to ensure that they do
not. That's not a radical point of view, it's one shared by most thoughtful
people.


>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> > I'm not.
>>
>> >> Yes you are. You never say anything of substance, you repeat slogans
>> >> and
>> >> recommend books.
>>
>> > You haven't said any more of substance than me. There's nothing wrong
>> > with recommending books. You've recommended an article, and I thanked
>> > you for bringing it to my attention instead of trying to put you down
>> > for it.
>>
>> I ordered the book you recommended and then attempted to read it. I also
>> probably thanked you at the time, if that's so important to you. The
>> point
>> is not simply book recommendations, it's relying on them instead of
>> presenting your own conclusions. That's what we're supposed to be doing
>> here, making our own cases.
>>
>
> I've done just as much by way of presenting my conclusions as you
> have.

I know that you probably think you are, but I don't see them.
>
>>
>>
>> >> You want everyone here to view you as a big-shot
>> >> philosopher but you've never said anything that remotely entitles you
>> >> to
>> >> such a status.
>>
>> > I don't care how people here view my level of competence in
>> > philosophy, any more than I care how they view my level of competence
>> > in mathematics.
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>>
>
> I don't care.
>
>> > I have a realistic appraisal of my level of
>> > understanding of philosophy,
>>
>> I don't believe that either, you vastly overestimate your level of
>> understanding, and underestimate others'..
>>
>
> You're entitled to your view.
>
>> > and people whose opinions matter confirm
>>
>> > that appraisal. What goes on in this newsgroup is irrelevant.
>>
>> Then why do spend your time here?
>>
>
> I'm not here to get recognition for my philosophical ability. I'm here
> to discuss the issues.

I don't believe you, because you don't.

>> > My level of competence in philosophy is not relevant to our
>> > discussion. You brought it up, not me. I've never initiated a
>> > discussion about it. Just talk about the issues, not the people.
>>
>> You're full of it. You have repeatedly stressed your belief that you have
>> a
>> far more developed and deeper understanding of these issues than those of
>> us
>> who disagree with you.
>
> In response to attempts to denigrate my level of understanding which I
> regard as silly and irrelevant to the real issues, yes, I have
> expressed my own estimation of my level of understanding. It's not
> really relevant. But people like Ball constantly make it an issue.
>
> When you tell me that I'm talking pseudo-intellectual waffle, I
> express my belief that you don't really grasp the ideas I'm trying to
> discuss with you. I'm sorry you find that condescending and tiresome.
> The feeling is mutual. You are every bit as condescending as me.
>
>> You are condescending in the extreme.
>>
>
> Much less so than all the antis here, including you.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > I'm engaging in perfectly rational discourse. Your reactions
>> >> > to my recommendations of interesting literature on the issues raised
>> >> > by what we're talking about are not very rational. I didn't react
>> >> > that
>> >> > way to your article recommendation. If you're not interested in
>> >> > philosophy, fine, why bother talking about it?
>>
>> >> I don't want to hear book recommendations in place of reasoned ideas.
>>
>> > I'm doing at least as much by way of supporting my position with
>> > reasoning as you are. I didn't object when you referred me to an
>> > article which you claimed contained a good critique of the argument
>> > from marginal cases, while not saying anything about the argument
>> > yourself. I was interested.
>>
>> Referring to hyperlinks is not quite the same as referring to library
>> books,
>> but I *did* take out your stupid book anyway.
>>
>> I did speak about the article, I included what I considered the most
>> relevant paragraph, gave the page number and have commented on it several
>> times. The biocentric view holds that all animal species have sentience
>> in
>> different degrees, and that is the basis for our views towards them. This
>> even agrees with preference utilitarianism as far as I can see. He also
>> separates the concepts of "ability" and "capability" and shows how this
>> essentially deals with the argument of marginal cases.
>>
>
> I'll have to take a look.
>
>> >> >> >> 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've made some reasonable effort at explaining them to you, but
>> >> > before
>> >> > we can get started in a sensible discussion you always dismiss what
>> >> > I'm saying as meaningless waffle. It's very hard to educate you.
>>
>> >> > I'm happy to have another go at it as long as you're prepared to be
>> >> > reasonable and polite and listen properly.
>>
>> >> You need to quit posturing and start making sense soon if you want to
>> >> earn
>> >> the admiration you so obviously crave.
>>
>> > See above. I have no interest in gaining the admiration of anyone
>> > here. If I want recognition of my abilities, I will seek it from
>> > people whose opinions I respect.
>>
>> Good then, goodbye and good riddance, dilettante.
>>
>
> Why should I leave? Why shouldn't I comment on the arguments that are
> brought up here if I feel like it? If gaining admiration is the only
> possible motive for being here, then may we assume that you are here
> in order to gain admiration?

I'm not the one bragging about my thesis and giving talks to graduate
students. I'm not the one offering to "educate" others.

>> >> You're not going to get it here by
>> >> demanding it.
>>
>> > This is irrelevant. As I said, I'm happy to have a go at explaining
>> > DeGrazia's ideas as long as you're prepared to be reasonable and
>> > polite and listen properly. That's nothing to do with recognizing my
>> > abilities as a philosopher. I'm just pointing out that if you're going
>> > to say "That's waffle, you're not really saying anything" at every
>> > step, then you're ineducable. That's not my problem.
>>
>> Colossal Arrogance is your problem, you don't come to a newsgroup and
>> pontificate about "educating" people, about how to look at the world.
>> This
>> isn't a math classroom, and you're not the professor, we're all peers
>> here.
>>
>
> I'd be more than happy to interact on the basis that we're all peers.
> You were the one who first departed from that, telling me that I was
> talking pseudo-intellectual waffle. Ball also initiated the departure
> from that basis of interaction by telling me that I was a dilettante
> who didn't really understand these issues. You people are entitled to
> your views, but if you're going to express them then I don't mind
> telling you what I think about these matters.
>
> There's no reason why we can't have a simple exchange of ideas without
> denigrating anyone else's abilities or bringing up the issue of how
> different people's levels of understanding compare. You people are the
> ones who make that impossible. I'm not the one who's arrogant.
>
>> Also, you talk in circles and riddles using undefined terms. If you want
>> to
>> attempt to translate mumbo-jumbo into common sense I'd be interested, if
>> you're just going to regurgitate mumbo-jumbo, then I am not interested.
>>
>
> I'm sorry that that's the way it appears to you. To understand the
> notion of "equal consideration" it helps to have some familiarity with
> the different frameworks that have been considered in moral
> philosophy.

If it can't be expressed in plain English then as far as I am concerned it's
useless.

> It's not as difficult to understand as higher mathematics
> and I think any reasonably intelligent person should be able to
> understand it, but it may take some time if you're not all that
> familiar with moral philosophy.

I understand what morals are, and I am intelligent, that should be
sufficient to enable us to communicate.

> I've been trying to discuss the
> concept with you, but you haven't been very receptive or polite.
> Perhaps my explanations could be better, but is that really any reason
> for being rude?

Your condescending attitude is very aggravating.

> You think it's all pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo,
> well that's fine, you're entitled to that view. Maybe I'm just being
> silly and I've persuaded myself that the concept means something when
> it doesn't really mean anything. Conceivably, that could be the case.
> But I think there are some facts which most people would agree make
> that a little implausible. If you want to have another go at trying to
> understand where I'm coming from, I don't mind giving it another go
> provided you make some effort to be polite. Or if you don't, that's
> fine as well, we can agree to disagree. I think I have a lot more
> cause to find you condescending, arrogant and tiresome than you have
> to find me so.

I think that you have plenty of reason to be frustrated in your dealings
with me, but I don't find that to be my fault.

>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> > Well, I could have a go at trying to get you to understand them, but
>> >> > it would be like casting pearls before swine. But we can give it
>> >> > another go, I guess, if you want.
>>
>> >> I really don't care Rupert, at this point I have no confidence that
>> >> you
>> >> have
>> >> the ability to articulate anything worthwhile. If you want to give it
>> >> a
>> >> try
>> >> go ahead, but don't do it on my account.
>>
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> > No, you haven't made any good criticisms of him. Your reaction to
>> >> > him
>> >> > is based on your unfamiliarity with the different moral philosophies
>> >> > by means of which he illustrates the concept of equal consideration.
>>
>> >> I've lived a lot of years and counted many very bright, educated
>> >> people
>> >> as
>> >> close friends, and we've spent many nights talking. I've never met
>> >> anyone
>> >> worth listening to that needed to talk in riddles to make a point.
>>
>> > I'm reading a book about modular forms at the moment. I suppose by
>> > your logic that book is not worth reading?
>>
>> That's just more condescending nonsense, moral philosophy is not higher
>> mathematics, it needs to be clear and understandable or what use is it?
>>
>
> Higher mathematics is clear and understandable. The essence of it is
> that it's absolutely clear and precise. But it takes time for most
> people to understand it. There could be some other useful fields which
> are like that as well, and some of them could be part of philosophy. I
> don't think moral philosophy is anywhere near as difficult to
> understand as higher mathematics, but I think that some aspects of it
> take time to get on top of.

You're absolutely wrong about that. Morals and higher mathematics or other
sciences like physics are nothing alike. That is probably your whole
problem, you're approaching morality as if it were maths, it's not.

> It really is rich your calling me "condescending" just because I tell
> you I'm reading a book about modular forms.

In the context you told me it was.

> I suppose there's nothing
> in the least condescending about you?

Not usually, unless I encounter some stuffed shirt who thinks I need
reforming or "educating", then no doubt.

>> > Look, I actually don't think this stuff is all that hard to
>> > understand. But you're clearly having trouble, and it's clearly due to
>> > your lack of familiarity with the importance differences between the
>> > different frameworks in moral philosophy. I don't mind trying to help
>> > you if you want. But you don't seem very interested, which is fine.
>>
>> More condescending claptrap, either say something worth listening to or
>> shut
>> the **** up.
>>
>
> Why should I bother trying to say something that you find worth
> listening to when you don't feel any need to make any effort at basic
> courtesy? There's nothing condescending about what I said, it's just
> the facts as I see them. There's no shame in not being all that
> familiar with moral philosophy. What I said is nowhere near as
> condescending as the attitude you're taking towards me.

Blah blah blah... say something worth hearing or shut up.


>> >> >> If you want to change that perception of mine then
>> >> >> *you* do it.
>>
>> >> > Well, I quite enjoy trying to explain ideas to people, but they're
>> >> > usually paying me, or failing that, they're usually at least polite
>> >> > and appreciative of my efforts. I haven't found the experience of
>> >> > trying to educate you to be particularly rewarding or fruitful in
>> >> > the
>> >> > past. If you really want me to, then ask me politely and I'll give
>> >> > it
>> >> > another go. But if you don't care, then we'll just leave it.
>>
>> >> Don't do it on my account. From everything I've heard out of you so
>> >> far,
>> >> you
>> >> are a pompous, self-important, pseudo-intellectual dilettante lacking
>> >> the
>> >> understanding and/or the capability to articulate those ideas. If YOU
>> >> want
>> >> to erase that impression then I'm always willing to reevaluate, but
>> >> I'm
>> >> not
>> >> holding my breath. You're nothing to me so I don't care. I wanted to
>> >> care, I
>> >> really did, but your interminable arrogance has turned me off.
>>
>> > I'm not arrogant.
>>
>> AAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> > Or if I am,
>>
>> You ****ing ARE!
>>
>> > then you're just as arrogant when you
>> > tell me (sincerely, I presume) that I'm talking meaningless waffle.
>> > You call me arrogant and condescending, I'm no more so than you. You
>> > were the one who started expressing derogatory opinions of other
>> > people's intellectual abilities.
>>
>> Rubbish, I can and do converse without talking down to people, provided
>> people talk plain English, not esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>
> I can and do converse without talking down to people too. I do it all
> the time. And I don't think I'm particularly "talking down" to you
> either, just pointing out the obvious fact that there are some areas
> of moral philosophy you're not all that familiar with and that this
> might be having a bearing on your reaction to DeGrazia. I'm not
> talking down to you to anything like the extent that you're talking
> down to me. If you're justified in talking down to me and you're not
> arrogant, then it seems only fair to say the same about me.

I am NOT INTERESTED in the esoteric world of "moral philosophy" as you put
it. I am interested in the morals of real human beings as they live their
lives.

>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> > It's obviously true. You demonstrated no such thing.
>>
>> >> Then please explain how the level of legal protection given to white
>> >> rhinos
>> >> could be elevated. As it is, anyone seen threatening them is shot on
>> >> sight
>> >> by game wardens.
>>
>> > That is one interesting and very special example, yes.
>>
>> Wonderful, why did I have to drag that admission out of you? So *some*
>> nonhuman animals have protection as strong as that given to human beings.
>>
>
> Well, I'm not sure about that. Do those rhinos have an absolute and
> unconditional guarantee that they will never have their liberty
> arbitrarily taken away from them?

No, and neither do humans. There is very little in this world that can be
called absolute and unconditional, very little indeed.

> But yes, you have given an example
> of some nonhuman animals having very strong legal protection.

And they are arguably not very bright either, probably no higher on the
sentience scale than mice.

>> >> Many people would kill anyone who threatened a beloved pet.
>>
>> > We were talking about what the law says. The law only regards the pet
>> > as property.
>>
>> We're talking about moral philosophy, how people view humans vs how they
>> view animals.
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> > Not the humans we're talking about.
>>
>> >> All humans, save those that are brain-dead, and we usually pull the
>> >> plug
>> >> on
>> >> them.
>>
>> > Nonsense.
>>
>> How is it nonsense?
>>
>
> It's nonsense that all humans except those in persistent vegetative
> states have the highest level of sentience in the animal kingdom.

You sure about that? That might depend on exactly what we decide to measure.

>> >> You need to read the essay on the biocentric view, it refutes the
>> >> argument for marginal cases very effectively.
>>
>> > Well, I certainly will read this essay, I'm looking forward to it. But
>> > I'll note that you've derided me for not myself summarizing the ideas
>> > in the books I refer to, and so far I only have your word for it that
>> > this essay refutes the argument effectively. Apparently you too
>> > sometimes like to let someone else do the talking for you.
>>
>> See above.
>
>

Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>
>>> >> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> [..]
>>>
>>> >> >> >> > 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.
>>>
>>> >> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
>>> >> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I
>>> tried >> > to
>>> >> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
>>> >> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>>>
>>> >> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just
>>> did. >> I
>>> >> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far
>>> has >> led
>>> >> me
>>> >> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will >>
>>> enlighen
>>> >> me
>>> >> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>>>
>>> > Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
>>> > theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
>>> > nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
>>> > know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
>>> > finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
>>> > your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
>>> > I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
>>> > telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>>>
>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while
>>> you're at
>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you
>>> will have
>>> said something.
>>>
>>
>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
>> of the actions available to us.
>
> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death for
> another sentient being, like a chicken?

The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable
means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they
have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across
individuals.


>> A theory is consistent with equal
>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>
> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the chicken?

The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation
for why equal consideration should be given to the
preferences of non-human beings.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 17, 12:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
>> > processes which harm animals (to a lesser extent)
>>
>> Not necessarily to a lesser extent, you only assume that. It's trivially
>> easy to show examples where that is not the case.
>
> Well, I don't know that anyone's actually shown an example, but I
> daresay examples exist, yes.
>
> My claim was that a vegan diet causes less harm than the typical diet.

I agree, but so does mine, by a country mile. I am confident that mine also
causes less harm than many vegan diets. Should I be lecturing vegans that
their choices fall short?

>> That breaks the
>> utilitarian argument for veganism as morally imperative, which is how it
>> is
>> always presented.
>>
>
> You could make an argument that there are some limits on the extent to
> which we should financially support unnecessary harm and that veganism
> is one way, not necessarily only the way, of respecting those limits.

You should avoid the term "unecessary" it adds no meaning in this context,
and you should stop using the word "financially", it's redundant, the word
"support" encapsulates it.

> That's the argument I've been making ever since I first got here. Ball
> has never said anything to touch this argument.

Having made those changes, if that was all vegans were saying I don't think
anyone would bother to disagree.

>
>> Please don't simply reply "rubbish" or something equally non-responsive
>> like
>> you usually do. If you disagree then make a reasoned argument.
>>
>> > is no reason at all
>> > why they should not be acting in a way that is morally preferable to
>> > the way that typical people act.
>>
>> Since when is moral righeousness determined by comparison against some
>> typical outcome? What happened to the principle that veganism is
>> purported
>> to be based on, that it is wrong to harm animals when there are
>> alternatives?
>>
>
> Well, we could retain that principle, with the proviso that perhaps
> there are some limits to our obligation to avoid harm, when the
> alternatives are sufficiently difficult.

I think the point being made is that harm is not proportional to the amount
of meat you consume, it's far more complex than that. That is the vegan
mypoia.

> That's a possibility, we may
> choose not to say that, in which case presumably we have to grow all
> our own food. But we could say it, and Ball's never said anything to
> touch this stance.
>
>> You are also omitting the part of vegan doctrine that says that it is
>> WRONG
>> to consume animal products. I can consume animal products AND cause less
>> animal harm than most vegans, I guarantee it.
>
> Well, assuming that's the case, fine. You'll have to ask other people
> to defend this part of the "vegan doctrine", I don't agree with it and
> I am happy to concede that Ball has made good criticisms of that. But
> I don't think he's adequately defending his view that there are no
> good moral reasons for veganism (or some diet similar in its impact on
> animals) at all.

In my view veganism is burdened by this childish and simplistic "Meat is
Murder" idea which appeals to many petty-minded people. Reasonable people
should find themselves a new calling card.


>> Who is wrong then? What is
>> morally preferable then?
>>
>> Veganism is too narrow-focused, it's also sleazy the way advocates
>> vacillate
>> between rights and consequence arguments as it suits them.
>
>

On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
> >>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried to
> >>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
> >>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
> >>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did. I
> >>>> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has led
> >>>> me
> >>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will enlighen
> >>>> me
> >>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
> >>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
> >>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
> >>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
> >>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
> >>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
> >>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
> >>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
> >>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
> >> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're at
> >> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
> >> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will have
> >> said something.
>
> > Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
> > action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> > preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
> > of the actions available to us.
>
> Which doesn't even attempt to say why the preferences
> of non-human entities ought be given any weight as all.

Why shouldn't they? What grounds are there for giving no weight to
preferences of nonhuman beings, any more than there are grounds for
giving no weight to the preferences of humans with dark skin?

If you're taking the viewpoint that preference-satisfaction is what
matters, then if anyone is going to say that the preferences of some
beings don't count, the burden is on them to explain why.

> As soon as they attempt it, they get circular.
>
> ****ing bullshit from start to finish. Among other
> things, it can - and has - led to some half-witted
> self-styled "philosopher" trying to show that the
> (il)logic of the larder is *correct*: that we "ought"
> to want to cause livestock to exist, because the amount
> of utility they experience up to the point we kill them
> exceeds the disutility they experience from being killed.
>
> You ****ing ****, rupie - you're trying to help that
> goddamned ****ing pervert ****wit David Harrison.

I'm not advocating preference utilitarianism, I'm explaining what it
is for the purpose of explaining to Dutch what theories are consistent
with equal consideration. I'm not a preference utilitarian. However,
you haven't offered any arguments against it in this post, you've just
uttered the word "bullshit".

On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
> >> >> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I tried
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
> >> >> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>
> >> >> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just did.
> >> >> I
> >> >> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far has
> >> >> led
> >> >> me
> >> >> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will
> >> >> enlighen
> >> >> me
> >> >> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>
> >> > Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
> >> > theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
> >> > nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
> >> > know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
> >> > finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
> >> > your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
> >> > I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
> >> > telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>
> >> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while you're
> >> at
> >> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
> >> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you will
> >> have
> >> said something.
>
> > Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
> > action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> > preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
> > of the actions available to us.
>
> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death for another
> sentient being, like a chicken?
>

Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.

> > A theory is consistent with equal
> > consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
> > decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> > sentient beings, regardless of species.
>
> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the chicken?
>

It means similar in all morally relevant respects. The issue is who
has the most at stake.

> > Preference utilitarianism is
> > consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the relevantly
> > similar interests of any two sentient beings equally, regardless of
> > species.
>
> Chickens want to live, I want to eat chicken. Who wins?
>

It depends on who has more at stake.

> > Peter Singer gives a discussion in Chapter 1 of "Animal
> > Liberation" of what's involved in doing this. Preference
> > utilitarianism is not the only theory that is consistent with equal
> > consideration because you could also have theories which are
> > deontological in the sense that they hold that there are some
> > constraints on how we should promote the good. These theories are
> > still consistent with equal consideration provided the constraints are
> > formulated in a way that gives equal weight to the relevantly similar
> > interests of all sentient beings regardless of species. Rawls' theory
> > of justice could be modified so as to be consistent with equal
> > consideration, so could libertarianism. This was all discussed in
> > DeGrazia's book, by the way. Would you like me to elaborate further?
>
> It's too theoretical, I want concrete examples. How exactly does "equal
> consideration of relevantly similar interests" impact my ability to
> financially support processes which, while allowing me to enjoy the
> lifestyle I prefer, simultaneously kills animals? Since the animals are not
> conscious of their mortality, may I weigh my own interest in the comforts of
> life over their instinct/interest to survive?
>

Yeah, you're right, complex issues are raised in actually applying
preference utilitarianism, and it may not be absolutely clear what it
actually entails about our situation. You want to argue about this,
maybe you should thrash it out with Peter Singer. I'm just presenting
it to you as an example.

>
>
> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> > Singer's ethic is quite demanding regarding our obligations to the
> >> >> > poor. In that sense it can be questioned whether it is
> >> >> > "practicable".
> >> >> > However, his views regarding animals are not so hard to put into
> >> >> > practice. And there might be other theories consistent with equal
> >> >> > consideration which do not entail that we have strong positive
> >> >> > duties
> >> >> > towards the poor, and so are not demanding in the way Singer's ethic
> >> >> > is, and are also not demanding in the way a strong animal rights
> >> >> > position is.
>
> >> >> Singer's attitude is that provided animals are treated kindly there is
> >> >> nothing wrong with raising them and killing them for food, as in The
> >> >> Salatin
> >> >> Farm, which he visited. I have heard him quoted saying this on several
> >> >> other
> >> >> occasions.
>
> >> > His opinion is a bit more nuanced than that, actually.
>
> >> Everything is nuanced, but that's the essence of it. It's basically how
> >> most
> >> people think.
>
> > Singer's views are still highly radical with respect to the status
> > quo.
>
> Maybe some of them, but not the ones I just described.
>

If his views about farming were put into practice, radical changes
would be required.

> >> > It's set forth
> >> > in "Practical Ethics". He only thinks it's acceptable provided it is
> >> > reasonable to assume that the animals do not have a concept of
> >> > themselves as an entity existing over time.
>
> >> That is essentially why everyone feels justified in the way we treat
> >> animals. It captures one major component of the difference between humans
> >> and other species, seeing oneself as mortal.
>
> > Well, maybe you would find Singer's philosophy congenial then. I work
> > with an organization called "Animal Liberation" which was founded
> > shortly after the publication of Singer's book of the same title, and
> > regards itself as having goals that are based on Singer's philosophy.
> > At the same time a lot of people who work with the organization are
> > strongly critical of Singer's philosophy and regard themselves as
> > animal rights advocates. I am inclined to think there are some
> > constraints on how we should promote the good, so to that extent I
> > disagree with Singer, but Singer has had a lot of influence on me.
>
> Everyone thinks there are constraints on how we should promote the good,
> such as not experimenting on humans against their will to advance medical
> science. That's normal.
>

Singer only thinks constraints apply when following them leads to
better consequences.

> >> > And he also thinks there
> >> > are dangers in having a policy which allows us to kill animals for
> >> > food, since that will encourage us to think of them as resources to
> >> > exploited and may tempt us to slide down the slippery slope to abuse.
>
> >> That exact danger exists in all instances when we exploit other beings
> >> for
> >> our own purposes, including human-human, organization-human,
> >> employer-worker, etc.. That's why we have laws.
>
> > Quite.
>
> >> > In "Practical Ethics" he suggested it may be best to have a general
> >> > policy of not killing animals for food. He may have changed his view
> >> > somewhat since then.
>
> >> I disagree with him. We should stop everything then.
>
> > Well, I really don't see how that follows. He advocated such a policy
> > in "Practical Ethics" because he thought it would lead to the best
> > consequences. To argue that it generalizes to "everything", whatever
> > exactly you mean by that, you'd have to argue that that would have the
> > best consequences overall as well.
>
> The best overall consequences [for the most beings] would be for man to
> disappear from this planet.
>

Well, you could argue that. Singer, I belive, would think that the
consequences are better overall if we stick around.

>
>
> >> >>I know you won't give me a direct answer, but I'll ask again
> >> >> anyway, by what stretch of the imagination can this be construed as
> >> >> "equal
> >> >> consideration"? Equal to what? No slogans please.
>
> >> > Preference utilitarianism is consistent with equal consideration
> >> > because it weighs all relevantly similar interests equally in
> >> > evaluating outcomes. The idea is that if a being does not have a
> >> > conception of itself as an entity existing over time, then it does not
> >> > have an interest in continuing to live in the way that you or I do. So
> >> > no wrong is done if we bring the being into existence, provide it with
> >> > a pleasant life, and then kill it prematurely (assuming that killing
> >> > it prematurely was inevitable if we were to bring the being into
> >> > existence at all).
>
> >> And this differs exactly how with the typical good-welfare-based way of
> >> looking at human-animal relations?
>
> > Some people call it a form of new welfarism. It's generally thought to
> > be more radical than standard welfarism. Have you read "Animal
> > Liberation"? Do you agree with all the recommendations he makes there?
>
> I don't want to get into referring to books at every turn. My view is that
> human beings, due to their unique nature and abilities, are granted the most
> fundamental of rights.
>
> >> > He also regards infanticide as sometimes acceptable
> >> > on similar grounds.
>
> >> I see no significant difference between infanticide and abortion, but
> >> that's
> >> another issue entirely.
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > Well, I don't agree. Maybe you have a different notion of
> >> >> >> > "sentience"
> >> >> >> > to me.
>
> >> >> >> It means the ability to experience sensations, like pain.
>
> >> >> > Yes, I agree. But I don't agree with you that every being has some
> >> >> > degree of sentience. Only members of the animal kingdom are
> >> >> > sentient,
> >> >> > for example.
>
> >> >> Plants are not "beings".
>
> >> > Why not? What's a "being"?
>
> >> A living creature,
>
> > A plant is a living creature.
>
> I already conceded the point, I don't care if you want to call plants
> beings. It's semantics.
>
> >> an animal. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you choose to
> >> include plants as beings, we agree that there is a leap from plant
> >> "beings"
> >> to animal "beings", and I contend that the difference is that animals
> >> have a
> >> far more evolved ability to experience sensations than plants, and that's
> >> what I call basic sentience.
>
> > Well, I would agree with you, quite a lot of animals are sentient,
> > possibly almost all of them, whereas no organisms that are not members
> > of the animal kingdom are.
>
> Probably not, but that rests on the definition of a word, which may vary.
> Plants certainly sense light and heat.
>

I don't think a plant's sensations have any subjective character. It
is not like anything to be a plant.


>
>
> >> >> >> 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?
>
> >> >> > Quite possibly, I don't know.
>
> >> >> Then surely a person devoted to "equal consideration" must assume that
> >> >> they
> >> >> do, along with most other insects. How can we live with ourselves
> >> >> knowing
> >> >> this, and knowing what we must do to grow crops?
>
> >> > You can hold that whatever interests the insects may have are
> >> > overridden by our need to sustain ourselves.
>
> >> Is that what YOU hold? I'm lost as to how your way of thinking is leading
> >> anywhere but the most common sense conclusions most of us already hold.
>
> > I agree with many of the conclusions advocated in Singer's "Animal
> > Liberation" and DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously", which are
> > strongly critical of the status quo and which many would regard as
> > fairly radical, and which include the conclusion that most of us
> > should make major changes to our diet. There are many issues I am
> > uncertain about. Being strongly critical of the status quo quite
> > possibly is something that would follow from "common-sense thinking"
> > if people were a bit more aware of the status quo.
>
> I believe that since animals can suffer as we can therefore we are morally
> obliged towards ones in our care to make every effort to ensure that they do
> not. That's not a radical point of view, it's one shared by most thoughtful
> people.
>

If it were put into practice fairly radical changes would be required.
So why aren't most thoughtful people campaigning for radical changes
in the way we treat animals?


> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> > I'm not.
>
> >> >> Yes you are. You never say anything of substance, you repeat slogans
> >> >> and
> >> >> recommend books.
>
> >> > You haven't said any more of substance than me. There's nothing wrong
> >> > with recommending books. You've recommended an article, and I thanked
> >> > you for bringing it to my attention instead of trying to put you down
> >> > for it.
>
> >> I ordered the book you recommended and then attempted to read it. I also
> >> probably thanked you at the time, if that's so important to you. The
> >> point
> >> is not simply book recommendations, it's relying on them instead of
> >> presenting your own conclusions. That's what we're supposed to be doing
> >> here, making our own cases.
>
> > I've done just as much by way of presenting my conclusions as you
> > have.
>
> I know that you probably think you are, but I don't see them.
>
>
>
> >> >> You want everyone here to view you as a big-shot
> >> >> philosopher but you've never said anything that remotely entitles you
> >> >> to
> >> >> such a status.
>
> >> > I don't care how people here view my level of competence in
> >> > philosophy, any more than I care how they view my level of competence
> >> > in mathematics.
>
> >> I don't believe you.
>
> > I don't care.
>
> >> > I have a realistic appraisal of my level of
> >> > understanding of philosophy,
>
> >> I don't believe that either, you vastly overestimate your level of
> >> understanding, and underestimate others'..
>
> > You're entitled to your view.
>
> >> > and people whose opinions matter confirm
>
> >> > that appraisal. What goes on in this newsgroup is irrelevant.
>
> >> Then why do spend your time here?
>
> > I'm not here to get recognition for my philosophical ability. I'm here
> > to discuss the issues.
>
> I don't believe you, because you don't.
>

I discuss them with people who have an interest in discussing them.
I'm discussing them right now.

> >> > My level of competence in philosophy is not relevant to our
> >> > discussion. You brought it up, not me. I've never initiated a
> >> > discussion about it. Just talk about the issues, not the people.
>
> >> You're full of it. You have repeatedly stressed your belief that you have
> >> a
> >> far more developed and deeper understanding of these issues than those of
> >> us
> >> who disagree with you.
>
> > In response to attempts to denigrate my level of understanding which I
> > regard as silly and irrelevant to the real issues, yes, I have
> > expressed my own estimation of my level of understanding. It's not
> > really relevant. But people like Ball constantly make it an issue.
>
> > When you tell me that I'm talking pseudo-intellectual waffle, I
> > express my belief that you don't really grasp the ideas I'm trying to
> > discuss with you. I'm sorry you find that condescending and tiresome.
> > The feeling is mutual. You are every bit as condescending as me.
>
> >> You are condescending in the extreme.
>
> > Much less so than all the antis here, including you.
>
> >> >> > I'm engaging in perfectly rational discourse. Your reactions
> >> >> > to my recommendations of interesting literature on the issues raised
> >> >> > by what we're talking about are not very rational. I didn't react
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > way to your article recommendation. If you're not interested in
> >> >> > philosophy, fine, why bother talking about it?
>
> >> >> I don't want to hear book recommendations in place of reasoned ideas.
>
> >> > I'm doing at least as much by way of supporting my position with
> >> > reasoning as you are. I didn't object when you referred me to an
> >> > article which you claimed contained a good critique of the argument
> >> > from marginal cases, while not saying anything about the argument
> >> > yourself. I was interested.
>
> >> Referring to hyperlinks is not quite the same as referring to library
> >> books,
> >> but I *did* take out your stupid book anyway.
>
> >> I did speak about the article, I included what I considered the most
> >> relevant paragraph, gave the page number and have commented on it several
> >> times. The biocentric view holds that all animal species have sentience
> >> in
> >> different degrees, and that is the basis for our views towards them. This
> >> even agrees with preference utilitarianism as far as I can see. He also
> >> separates the concepts of "ability" and "capability" and shows how this
> >> essentially deals with the argument of marginal cases.
>
> > I'll have to take a look.
>
> >> >> >> >> 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've made some reasonable effort at explaining them to you, but
> >> >> > before
> >> >> > we can get started in a sensible discussion you always dismiss what
> >> >> > I'm saying as meaningless waffle. It's very hard to educate you.
>
> >> >> > I'm happy to have another go at it as long as you're prepared to be
> >> >> > reasonable and polite and listen properly.
>
> >> >> You need to quit posturing and start making sense soon if you want to
> >> >> earn
> >> >> the admiration you so obviously crave.
>
> >> > See above. I have no interest in gaining the admiration of anyone
> >> > here. If I want recognition of my abilities, I will seek it from
> >> > people whose opinions I respect.
>
> >> Good then, goodbye and good riddance, dilettante.
>
> > Why should I leave? Why shouldn't I comment on the arguments that are
> > brought up here if I feel like it? If gaining admiration is the only
> > possible motive for being here, then may we assume that you are here
> > in order to gain admiration?
>
> I'm not the one bragging about my thesis and giving talks to graduate
> students. I'm not the one offering to "educate" others.
>

I state the facts about my thesis in response to Jon Ball's childish
and pathetic attempts to put me down. If Ball waged a campaign of
character assassination against you, you would defend yourself too. I
really don't see what's wrong with offering to attempt to educate
someone.

You missed the point, anyway. Okay, so you're not here to gain
admiration. That shows that there may be motives for being here other
than to gain admiration. So if I say "I'm not here to gain
admiration", and you say "goodbye and good riddance", that's a non
sequitur.

> >> >> You're not going to get it here by
> >> >> demanding it.
>
> >> > This is irrelevant. As I said, I'm happy to have a go at explaining
> >> > DeGrazia's ideas as long as you're prepared to be reasonable and
> >> > polite and listen properly. That's nothing to do with recognizing my
> >> > abilities as a philosopher. I'm just pointing out that if you're going
> >> > to say "That's waffle, you're not really saying anything" at every
> >> > step, then you're ineducable. That's not my problem.
>
> >> Colossal Arrogance is your problem, you don't come to a newsgroup and
> >> pontificate about "educating" people, about how to look at the world.
> >> This
> >> isn't a math classroom, and you're not the professor, we're all peers
> >> here.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to interact on the basis that we're all peers.
> > You were the one who first departed from that, telling me that I was
> > talking pseudo-intellectual waffle. Ball also initiated the departure
> > from that basis of interaction by telling me that I was a dilettante
> > who didn't really understand these issues. You people are entitled to
> > your views, but if you're going to express them then I don't mind
> > telling you what I think about these matters.
>
> > There's no reason why we can't have a simple exchange of ideas without
> > denigrating anyone else's abilities or bringing up the issue of how
> > different people's levels of understanding compare. You people are the
> > ones who make that impossible. I'm not the one who's arrogant.
>
> >> Also, you talk in circles and riddles using undefined terms. If you want
> >> to
> >> attempt to translate mumbo-jumbo into common sense I'd be interested, if
> >> you're just going to regurgitate mumbo-jumbo, then I am not interested.
>
> > I'm sorry that that's the way it appears to you. To understand the
> > notion of "equal consideration" it helps to have some familiarity with
> > the different frameworks that have been considered in moral
> > philosophy.
>
> If it can't be expressed in plain English then as far as I am concerned it's
> useless.
>

It can be expressed in English, but a little time and effort is
required to understand.

> > It's not as difficult to understand as higher mathematics
> > and I think any reasonably intelligent person should be able to
> > understand it, but it may take some time if you're not all that
> > familiar with moral philosophy.
>
> I understand what morals are, and I am intelligent, that should be
> sufficient to enable us to communicate.
>

It certainly should be. Obstacles seem to be getting in the way,
though. I would dare to speculate that it's because someone is not
making much of an effort to be open-minded and receptive to new ideas.

> > I've been trying to discuss the
> > concept with you, but you haven't been very receptive or polite.
> > Perhaps my explanations could be better, but is that really any reason
> > for being rude?
>
> Your condescending attitude is very aggravating.
>

Well, you started it. You told me I was talking pseudo-intellectual
waffle. That's very condescending, aggravating and tiresome too, and
as far as I can tell it was unprovoked and unnecessary. You could have
just said "I find what you're saying obscure", or asked critical
questions about it.

> > You think it's all pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo,
> > well that's fine, you're entitled to that view. Maybe I'm just being
> > silly and I've persuaded myself that the concept means something when
> > it doesn't really mean anything. Conceivably, that could be the case.
> > But I think there are some facts which most people would agree make
> > that a little implausible. If you want to have another go at trying to
> > understand where I'm coming from, I don't mind giving it another go
> > provided you make some effort to be polite. Or if you don't, that's
> > fine as well, we can agree to disagree. I think I have a lot more
> > cause to find you condescending, arrogant and tiresome than you have
> > to find me so.
>
> I think that you have plenty of reason to be frustrated in your dealings
> with me, but I don't find that to be my fault.
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> > Well, I could have a go at trying to get you to understand them, but
> >> >> > it would be like casting pearls before swine. But we can give it
> >> >> > another go, I guess, if you want.
>
> >> >> I really don't care Rupert, at this point I have no confidence that
> >> >> you
> >> >> have
> >> >> the ability to articulate anything worthwhile. If you want to give it
> >> >> a
> >> >> try
> >> >> go ahead, but don't do it on my account.
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> > No, you haven't made any good criticisms of him. Your reaction to
> >> >> > him
> >> >> > is based on your unfamiliarity with the different moral philosophies
> >> >> > by means of which he illustrates the concept of equal consideration.
>
> >> >> I've lived a lot of years and counted many very bright, educated
> >> >> people
> >> >> as
> >> >> close friends, and we've spent many nights talking. I've never met
> >> >> anyone
> >> >> worth listening to that needed to talk in riddles to make a point.
>
> >> > I'm reading a book about modular forms at the moment. I suppose by
> >> > your logic that book is not worth reading?
>
> >> That's just more condescending nonsense, moral philosophy is not higher
> >> mathematics, it needs to be clear and understandable or what use is it?
>
> > Higher mathematics is clear and understandable. The essence of it is
> > that it's absolutely clear and precise. But it takes time for most
> > people to understand it. There could be some other useful fields which
> > are like that as well, and some of them could be part of philosophy. I
> > don't think moral philosophy is anywhere near as difficult to
> > understand as higher mathematics, but I think that some aspects of it
> > take time to get on top of.
>
> You're absolutely wrong about that.

Really. How interesting.

> Morals and higher mathematics or other
> sciences like physics are nothing alike. That is probably your whole
> problem, you're approaching morality as if it were maths, it's not.
>
> > It really is rich your calling me "condescending" just because I tell
> > you I'm reading a book about modular forms.
>
> In the context you told me it was.
>

Rubbish.

> > I suppose there's nothing
> > in the least condescending about you?
>
> Not usually, unless I encounter some stuffed shirt who thinks I need
> reforming or "educating", then no doubt.
>

You started being condescending long before I started the behaviour
that you complain of.

> >> > Look, I actually don't think this stuff is all that hard to
> >> > understand. But you're clearly having trouble, and it's clearly due to
> >> > your lack of familiarity with the importance differences between the
> >> > different frameworks in moral philosophy. I don't mind trying to help
> >> > you if you want. But you don't seem very interested, which is fine.
>
> >> More condescending claptrap, either say something worth listening to or
> >> shut
> >> the **** up.
>
> > Why should I bother trying to say something that you find worth
> > listening to when you don't feel any need to make any effort at basic
> > courtesy? There's nothing condescending about what I said, it's just
> > the facts as I see them. There's no shame in not being all that
> > familiar with moral philosophy. What I said is nowhere near as
> > condescending as the attitude you're taking towards me.
>
> Blah blah blah... say something worth hearing or shut up.
>
> >> >> >> If you want to change that perception of mine then
> >> >> >> *you* do it.
>
> >> >> > Well, I quite enjoy trying to explain ideas to people, but they're
> >> >> > usually paying me, or failing that, they're usually at least polite
> >> >> > and appreciative of my efforts. I haven't found the experience of
> >> >> > trying to educate you to be particularly rewarding or fruitful in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > past. If you really want me to, then ask me politely and I'll give
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > another go. But if you don't care, then we'll just leave it.
>
> >> >> Don't do it on my account. From everything I've heard out of you so
> >> >> far,
> >> >> you
> >> >> are a pompous, self-important, pseudo-intellectual dilettante lacking
> >> >> the
> >> >> understanding and/or the capability to articulate those ideas. If YOU
> >> >> want
> >> >> to erase that impression then I'm always willing to reevaluate, but
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> not
> >> >> holding my breath. You're nothing to me so I don't care. I wanted to
> >> >> care, I
> >> >> really did, but your interminable arrogance has turned me off.
>
> >> > I'm not arrogant.
>
> >> AAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> > Or if I am,
>
> >> You ****ing ARE!
>
> >> > then you're just as arrogant when you
> >> > tell me (sincerely, I presume) that I'm talking meaningless waffle.
> >> > You call me arrogant and condescending, I'm no more so than you. You
> >> > were the one who started expressing derogatory opinions of other
> >> > people's intellectual abilities.
>
> >> Rubbish, I can and do converse without talking down to people, provided
> >> people talk plain English, not esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
>
> > I can and do converse without talking down to people too. I do it all
> > the time. And I don't think I'm particularly "talking down" to you
> > either, just pointing out the obvious fact that there are some areas
> > of moral philosophy you're not all that familiar with and that this
> > might be having a bearing on your reaction to DeGrazia. I'm not
> > talking down to you to anything like the extent that you're talking
> > down to me. If you're justified in talking down to me and you're not
> > arrogant, then it seems only fair to say the same about me.
>
> I am NOT INTERESTED in the esoteric world of "moral philosophy" as you put
> it. I am interested in the morals of real human beings as they live their
> lives.
>
>
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> > It's obviously true. You demonstrated no such thing.
>
> >> >> Then please explain how the level of legal protection given to white
> >> >> rhinos
> >> >> could be elevated. As it is, anyone seen threatening them is shot on
> >> >> sight
> >> >> by game wardens.
>
> >> > That is one interesting and very special example, yes.
>
> >> Wonderful, why did I have to drag that admission out of you? So *some*
> >> nonhuman animals have protection as strong as that given to human beings.
>
> > Well, I'm not sure about that. Do those rhinos have an absolute and
> > unconditional guarantee that they will never have their liberty
> > arbitrarily taken away from them?
>
> No, and neither do humans. There is very little in this world that can be
> called absolute and unconditional, very little indeed.
>
> > But yes, you have given an example
> > of some nonhuman animals having very strong legal protection.
>
> And they are arguably not very bright either, probably no higher on the
> sentience scale than mice.
>
> >> >> Many people would kill anyone who threatened a beloved pet.
>
> >> > We were talking about what the law says. The law only regards the pet
> >> > as property.
>
> >> We're talking about moral philosophy, how people view humans vs how they
> >> view animals.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> > Not the humans we're talking about.
>
> >> >> All humans, save those that are brain-dead, and we usually pull the
> >> >> plug
> >> >> on
> >> >> them.
>
> >> > Nonsense.
>
> >> How is it nonsense?
>
> > It's nonsense that all humans except those in persistent vegetative
> > states have the highest level of sentience in the animal kingdom.
>
> You sure about that? That might depend on exactly what we decide to measure.

Well, elaborate.

>> >> You need to read the essay on the biocentric view, it refutes the
> >> >> argument for marginal cases very effectively.
>
> >> > Well, I certainly will read this essay, I'm looking forward to it. But
> >> > I'll note that you've derided me for not myself summarizing the ideas
> >> > in the books I refer to, and so far I only have your word for it that
> >> > this essay refutes the argument effectively. Apparently you too
> >> > sometimes like to let someone else do the talking for you.
>
> >> See above.

On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >>> > On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >>> >> > On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>> >> [..]
>
> >>> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >>> >> > Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a theory
> >>> >> > which is consistent with equal consideration. The last time I
> >>> tried >> > to
> >>> >> > explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. Perhaps you
> >>> >> > should have made a greater effort to listen and understand.
>
> >>> >> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like you just
> >>> did. >> I
> >>> >> understand language and the world well enough, and nothing so far
> >>> has >> led
> >>> >> me
> >>> >> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that will >>
> >>> enlighen
> >>> >> me
> >>> >> any further. If you did you probably would have done so by now.
>
> >>> > Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example of a
> >>> > theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is not saying
> >>> > nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone who didn't
> >>> > know very much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism not
> >>> > finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for you to view
> >>> > your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect on my part.
> >>> > I would have thought it would be more rational to say "Would you mind
> >>> > telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism is?"
>
> >>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English while
> >>> you're at
> >>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a way that any
> >>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. Then you
> >>> will have
> >>> said something.
>
> >> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform that
> >> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> >> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future time,
> >> of the actions available to us.
>
> > What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death for
> > another sentient being, like a chicken?
>
> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable
> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they
> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across
> individuals.
>

That's a challenge that can be raised, yes. The same challenge can be
raised regarding any theory which appeals to some account of what it
is to promote the good overall. This includes your political
philosophy. You said "**** off, rupie. Some things don't lend
themselves to markets." That means under circumstances you think the
government is justified in overriding people's rights in the name of
promoting the overall good. So you need an account of what it is to
promote the overall good. This will be just as hard for you as it is
for the utilitarian.

> >> A theory is consistent with equal
> >> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
> >> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> >> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>
> > What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the chicken?
>

Similar in all morally relevant respects.

> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation
> for why equal consideration should be given to the
> preferences of non-human beings.

No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't. You might as
well say, why should we give equal consideration to the preferences of
black humans. If you're going to discount the interests of the members
of a particular group, you need to give some justification.

On Jun 17, 5:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jun 17, 12:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
> >> > processes which harm animals (to a lesser extent)
>
> >> Not necessarily to a lesser extent, you only assume that. It's trivially
> >> easy to show examples where that is not the case.
>
> > Well, I don't know that anyone's actually shown an example, but I
> > daresay examples exist, yes.
>
> > My claim was that a vegan diet causes less harm than the typical diet.
>
> I agree, but so does mine, by a country mile. I am confident that mine also
> causes less harm than many vegan diets.

I'd be interested to see you defend that claim.

> Should I be lecturing vegans that
> their choices fall short?
>

If you really feel they're not making every reasonable effort, sure,
why not?

> >> That breaks the
> >> utilitarian argument for veganism as morally imperative, which is how it
> >> is
> >> always presented.
>
> > You could make an argument that there are some limits on the extent to
> > which we should financially support unnecessary harm and that veganism
> > is one way, not necessarily only the way, of respecting those limits.
>
> You should avoid the term "unecessary" it adds no meaning in this context,
> and you should stop using the word "financially", it's redundant, the word
> "support" encapsulates it.
>
> > That's the argument I've been making ever since I first got here. Ball
> > has never said anything to touch this argument.
>
> Having made those changes, if that was all vegans were saying I don't think
> anyone would bother to disagree.
>

Then why have I had abuse and scorn poured on me ever since I got here
when that's all I've ever been saying? Were you not listening?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Please don't simply reply "rubbish" or something equally non-responsive
> >> like
> >> you usually do. If you disagree then make a reasoned argument.
>
> >> > is no reason at all
> >> > why they should not be acting in a way that is morally preferable to
> >> > the way that typical people act.
>
> >> Since when is moral righeousness determined by comparison against some
> >> typical outcome? What happened to the principle that veganism is
> >> purported
> >> to be based on, that it is wrong to harm animals when there are
> >> alternatives?
>
> > Well, we could retain that principle, with the proviso that perhaps
> > there are some limits to our obligation to avoid harm, when the
> > alternatives are sufficiently difficult.
>
> I think the point being made is that harm is not proportional to the amount
> of meat you consume, it's far more complex than that. That is the vegan
> mypoia.
>

That is a perfectly reasonable point and I have never disagreed with
it. However, the antis here have still seen fit to pour scorn and
abuse on me. It seems to me that they are bigots who are not really
interested in listening to what someone is saying.

>
>
>
>
> > That's a possibility, we may
> > choose not to say that, in which case presumably we have to grow all
> > our own food. But we could say it, and Ball's never said anything to
> > touch this stance.
>
> >> You are also omitting the part of vegan doctrine that says that it is
> >> WRONG
> >> to consume animal products. I can consume animal products AND cause less
> >> animal harm than most vegans, I guarantee it.
>
> > Well, assuming that's the case, fine. You'll have to ask other people
> > to defend this part of the "vegan doctrine", I don't agree with it and
> > I am happy to concede that Ball has made good criticisms of that. But
> > I don't think he's adequately defending his view that there are no
> > good moral reasons for veganism (or some diet similar in its impact on
> > animals) at all.
>
> In my view veganism is burdened by this childish and simplistic "Meat is
> Murder" idea which appeals to many petty-minded people. Reasonable people
> should find themselves a new calling card.
>

Reasonable people should also recognize that Ball is only attacking a
very narrow target and he should acknowledge that there are many
reasonable grounds for veganism which he has not touched at all.

>
>
> >> Who is wrong then? What is
> >> morally preferable then?
>
> >> Veganism is too narrow-focused, it's also sleazy the way advocates
> >> vacillate
> >> between rights and consequence arguments as it suits them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -