On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>lied:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>>> So you claim, Goober, but as yet you still can't explain why
>>>> you think so.
>>> I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.
>>
>> Yet you can't do it now
>
>No, I *won't* do it now, ****wit; but I can. You're
>just trying to waste my time, ****wit, and as we long
>ago established, you do not waste my time - I waste yours.
>
>
>>> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>>> existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>>> it clearly is only for yours.
>>
>> I can consider both
>
>No, you don't. Stop lying, ****wit. You only consider
>your benefit. Because you're ashamed of it, you go
>through a silly charade of pretending you consider the
>benefit of the animals from existing, but there is no
>such benefit.

The fact that you can't explain why should tell you
that you have no idea what you're trying to talk about,
Goo.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:17:51 GMT, Goo wrote:

>Rupert wrote:

>> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Goo wrote:

>>> 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,

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:33:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>>>lives".
>>>>
>>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>>
>>>Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>>>lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>>
>> So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
>> why.
>
>Why do you keep calling it selfish when you are unable to explain why it's
>selfish?

I do explain why it's selfish, but you can't understand it so you
necessarily can't appreciate it either.

>>Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
>> the animals gain?
>
>Give me one reason to to consider what the animals gain.

Because it's a necessary step in considering whether or not it's
cruel to them to be raised for food.

>Describe one benefit that would accrue to one animal if I began
>doing that right now.

Nothing you think about can benefit any animal. What you do
as a result of what you think about can. Insisting that people
refuse to consider the animals' lives could never help any animals.
Getting people to consider the animals' lives leads to better AW.
Better AW works against the misnomer, which is why you hate it.
Duh, of course. You are in favor of the misnomer, and can't move
away from it. Some aspects of your behavior show that you would
like to, but you're still confused and afraid to try because it makes
you feel dirty. The "dirty" feelings are a result of the purity of your
selfishness, which traps you.

On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,

Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
"ought to occur"?

On Jun 17, 3:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> .com...
> >>>>>>>> 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.

"Financial support" is the correct description.

> They *participate* in those processes,
> rupie.

No.

> When you write "[merely] financially support",
> you are trying to downplay and minimize their role.

No.

> But their role is:
>
> - active
> - fully aware
> - voluntary
> - repeated
> - unnecessary
>

Yes. But "financial support" is a perfectly correct description.

> 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.

No.

> 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.
>

They choose to financially support them, yes.

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

No. Stop absurdly trying to order people around and acting like a fool.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Why shouldn't they?
>> Invalid response. The burden of proof is on you to
>> show that they should.
>>
>
> Nonsense.

No. The burden of proof is on you, and you're not
meeting it.


>>>> 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
>> You are helping ****wit David Harrison, the pervert who
>> solicits kinky *** sex on his leaky rusty houseboat.
>
> No, I'm not.

Yes, you are, you stupid simpering ****.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Why shouldn't they?
>> Because those preferences conflict with ours.
>>
>
> Well, I might as well say, "Why should I give anyone else's
> preferences any consideration, when they conflict with mine?"

If you're talking about mere preferences, then yes, why
*should* you give them any consideration? But we're
not, rupie. When we talk about humans, we are talking
about rights, not merely preferences.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes.
>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way.
>>
>
> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge applies
> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least as
> good a job of responding to it as anyone else.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>> Circular.
>>
>
> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what
> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how much is
> at stake for the affected parties.
>
>>>> 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.
>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to
>> meet, is on you to show that it should.
>
> No.

Yes. You are the ones who want to change something,
based on assertions you make. You must support the
assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well,
why not?" is not support.

The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
- always.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>>> 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.
>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it is not
>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time. My
>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
>>
>
> This is nonsense

No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.


>>>>>> 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.
>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are used in
>>> the phrase being defined.
>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.

No. There's no such thing as morality in
utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
blabbering about entities' preferences.


>>>> The issue is who
>>>> has the most at stake.
>>> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense then the
>>> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation. Therefore
>>> the consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how its
>>> weighted.
>> Arbitrarily, so that the bullshit sophist "A.L."
>> utilitarian "wins" his little rhetorical game.
>
> Nonsense. It's not weighted.

Bullshit. You just don't know what the ****ing hell
you're talking about. Of *course* there are weights,
you stupid ****. But you ****s just make them up.

On Jun 18, 3:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 4:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> glegroups.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?
> >> Invalid response. The burden of proof is on you to
> >> show that they should.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> No. The burden of proof is on you, and you're not
> meeting it.
>

Why? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the interests of black
people shouldn't be ignored? How do you propose to meet that burden of
proof?

>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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
> >> You are helping ****wit David Harrison, the pervert who
> >> solicits kinky *** sex on his leaky rusty houseboat.
>
> > No, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are, you stupid simpering ****.

You truly are quite an astonishing imbecile on so many different
levels.

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.
>
>
> Most of the people I speak with are perfectly polite to me, and many
> are pleased to receive my call.

That's a ****ing lie.


>>> 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

It's a ****ing laugh riot, rupie. What a ****!


>>>>>>> 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

Wrong. It assumes there are only two ways, and that's
bullshit. "One way or ANother", you stupid blithering
****.


>> But I do have a clue - in fact, much more than that.
>
>
> On the basis of what?

Education, experience, innate ability.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Okay

Yes, okay.


>>>>>>> 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 you making exclamation marks about here, you weirdo? Okay,
> so you think I'll be stuck in telemarketing for the next five years.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Goddamnit, rupie, I'm about to split
my sides!


> I've just completed quite a good Ph.D. thesis in maths

As if anyone is going to take your [highly
self-interested] word for it, you ****.


>>>>>>> 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.

What the **** is wrong with you, *writing* out "sigh"?
You ****ing baboon.


>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> It gets more convincing

Of course.


>>>>>>>>>> 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. The fact that you spend a HUGE
>> amount of time here - you really are a wheezy windbag - instead of
>> doing research speaks volumes.
>
>
> Well, that's a very interesting view you have, but the bottom
> line is, I'm extremely well-read in many different areas of
> mathematics,

But not *doing* anything there. SO it was a waste of
the taxpayers' money.


> It may well be that I'll never win the Fields Medal

That's a guarantee.

On Jun 18, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> glegroups.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?
> >> Because those preferences conflict with ours.
>
> > Well, I might as well say, "Why should I give anyone else's
> > preferences any consideration, when they conflict with mine?"
>
> If you're talking about mere preferences, then yes, why
> *should* you give them any consideration? But we're
> not, rupie. When we talk about humans, we are talking
> about rights, not merely preferences.

Well, in that case you're rejecting preference utilitarianism. I
thought you were addressing a question to the preference
utilitarianism, why not restrict the preferences you consider to human
preferences? If you're just rejecting preference utilitarianism
outright, then that's a different argument. Of course, a rights
theorist who maintains that all sentient humans and only sentient
humans have rights also has to explain why that should be.

On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> legroups.com...
> >>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oglegroups.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.
> >> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way.
>
> > As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge applies
> > to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least as
> > good a job of responding to it as anyone else.
>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >> Circular.
>
> > No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what
> > respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how much is
> > at stake for the affected parties.
>
> >>>> 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.
> >> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to
> >> meet, is on you to show that it should.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something,
> based on assertions you make. You must support the
> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well,
> why not?" is not support.
>
> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
> - always.

If I point out that existing institutions are based on discrimination
that lacks justification, then the burden of proof is on those who
would seek to justify those institutions. If I lived in the nineteenth
century and wanted to challenge the institution of enslaving black
people, it would have been sufficient for me to point out that it was
based on arbitrary discrimination and ask for a justification for that
discrimination. How else could I have argued that the institution was
wrong?

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>> lied:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>>>> So you claim, Goober, but as yet you still can't explain why
>>>>> you think so.
>>>> I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.
>>> Yet you can't do it now
>> No, I *won't* do it now, ****wit; but I can. You're
>> just trying to waste my time, ****wit, and as we long
>> ago established, you do not waste my time - I waste yours.
>>
>>
>>>> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>>>> existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>>>> it clearly is only for yours.
>>> I can consider both
>> No, you don't. Stop lying, ****wit. You only consider
>> your benefit. Because you're ashamed of it, you go
>> through a silly charade of pretending you consider the
>> benefit of the animals from existing, but there is no
>> such benefit.
>
> The fact that

You only consider your benefit, ****wit, and then you
make up bullshit about considering the non-existent
livestock animals' benefit. It's bullshit.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:17:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Rupert wrote:
>
>>> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>> 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,
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . .

You falsified that.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular thei

There is zero reason to give "their lives" any
consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives
"ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone
of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is
important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much
bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will
never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any
consideration of
their lives.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 17, 3:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> "Financial support" is

....is a lie. It is not "[merely] financial support",
and that is the incorrect description. That is a
sleazy, deliberately deceptive attempt to minimize what
it is they do, and it has FAILED, rupie. But you're a
dishonest sleaze, and you wrongly think if you keep
repeating the lie often enough, you'll eventually get
away with it.

It is a lie, rupie, and you won't get away with it.
You are trying to minimize the involvement and downplay
it, and you can't do it - not while I'm around to
remind you and all the sleazy little ****s you're
trying to protect that their *PARTICIPATION* is:

- active
- fully aware
- voluntary
- repeated
- unnecessary

They *CHOOSE* to participate in killing animals, rupie.
YOU DO, rupie. There is blood on your hands, rupie.


>> They *participate* in those processes,
>> rupie.
>
> No.

Yes, rupie.


>> When you write "[merely] financially support",
>> you are trying to downplay and minimize their role.
>
> No.

Yes, rupie, you are. It is sleazy and dishonest, and
this is the biggest part of why we *KNOW* that you are
unethical.


>> But their role is:
>>
>> - active
>> - fully aware
>> - voluntary
>> - repeated
>> - unnecessary
>>
>
> Yes. But "financial support" is

....is a lie, rupie. It's wrong. It's dishonest, and
it's a sleazy attempt to avoid moral culpability that
*ATTACHES* to you.


>> 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.
>
> No.

Yes, rupie, that's exactly what you're trying to do,
you sleazy lying ****.


>> 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.
>>
>
> They choose to

They choose to kill, rupie. You choose to kill. You
are a killer.


>> Stop writing "[merely] financially support", rupie, you
>> little smarmy thimbleful of shit.
>
> No.

Yes, rupie. When you write it, you are a sleazy and
dishonest ****.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 4:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Why shouldn't they?
>>>> Invalid response. The burden of proof is on you to
>>>> show that they should.
>>> Nonsense.
>> No. The burden of proof is on you, and you're not
>> meeting it.
>>
>
> Why? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the interests of black
> people shouldn't be ignored? How do you propose to meet that burden of
> proof?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>> You are helping ****wit David Harrison, the pervert who
>>>> solicits kinky *** sex on his leaky rusty houseboat.
>>> No, I'm not.
>> Yes, you are, you stupid simpering ****.
>
> You truly are

You truly are a simpering stupid ****.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Why shouldn't they?
>>>> Because those preferences conflict with ours.
>>> Well, I might as well say, "Why should I give anyone else's
>>> preferences any consideration, when they conflict with mine?"
>> If you're talking about mere preferences, then yes, why
>> *should* you give them any consideration? But we're
>> not, rupie. When we talk about humans, we are talking
>> about rights, not merely preferences.
>
> Well, in that case

**** off, sleazy lying **** boy.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes.
>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way.
>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge applies
>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least as
>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Circular.
>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what
>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how much is
>>> at stake for the affected parties.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to
>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should.
>>> No.
>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something,
>> based on assertions you make. You must support the
>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well,
>> why not?" is not support.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
>> - always.
>
> If I point out that existing institutions are based on discrimination
> that lacks justification

Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the
lack of justification. You fail.

****wit.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 18, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> >> > 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?
>>
>> Because those preferences conflict with ours.
>>
>
> Well, I might as well say, "Why should I give anyone else's
> preferences any consideration, when they conflict with mine?" What
> justification is there for drawing the distinction on the basis of
> species? Why not on the basis of race, or on whether someone was born
> in a leap year?

Because species signifies differences in sentience, sometime vast
differences. Year of birth doesn't signify anything.

>
>> > 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?
>>
>> There are relevant bases for differentiation between species, there are
>> none
>> between races of humans.
>>
>
> Well, we've been through this many many times. There are differences
> between typical humans and typical nonhumans, but if you're going to
> make those the basis of differentiation then some humans will fall
> outside the protected circle.

Ability vs "capability", read the essay.

> Incidentally, there are measurable differences between the average IQ
> scores of different races.

What do average IQs have to do with anything?

>> > 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.
>>
>> It's not even that they don't count, it's that they are overruled.
>> Organisms
>> always place priority on their own preferences.
>>
>
> Well, preference utilitarians say we should consider all interests of
> all parties affected equally.

Nobody does that.

> You may not agree with it, that's fine,
> I'm just expounding for you what the theory says, as an example of a
> theory that is consistent with equal consideration.

Nothing is consistent with "equal consideration", nobody knows what it
means, and an equally inscrutable catch-phrase will not pass as a lucid
definition. Consideration is always specific.

>> >> 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.
>>
>> You have never explained it, you just assert it.
>>
>
> I'm explaining what it says. I'm not asserting that it is the correct
> theory.

You're repeating catch-phrases, you're not explaining anything.

"Rupert" > wrote.
> If I were in the nineteenth
> century and I were arguing that the interests of black people should
> be given equal weight to those of white people, it would not be my job
> to make a positive case. It would be sufficient simply to challenge my
> opponents to give good grounds on which to discriminate against black
> people.

You can't base your position on the assumption that racism provides a valid
example. It doesn't, it's an absurd argument. The differences between negro
men and white men are insignificant compared to the differences between a
chicken and a human being.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 18, 7:24 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> The sentience level of a chicken is not even remotely close to that of a
>> human, and you have said yourself that sentience is a morally relevant
>> factor. You have essentially implied that sentience *in any degree*
>> implies
>> that we should apply equal consideration (literally) yet in other
>> arguments
>> you agree that we are not required to do so.
>
> You're confused about what equal consideration means.

I agree, so are you, you just won't admit it.

> We should give
> the chicken's interest equal consideration to that which we would give
> to the relevantly similar interests of a human. (In order to have
> relevantly similar interests, the human would have to be of similar
> cognitive capacity to the chicken). However a chicken's interests are
> different in kind to that of a typical human, because of the smaller
> degree of cognitive complexity. This may give rise to differences in
> the way we treat the chicken.

Meaning.. if I ever encounter a chicken that can carry on a conversation I
will stop eating chicken.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I'd be happy to, but first, for the sake of argument, say I do. Say that
>> I
>> show beyond all reasonable doubt that my diet causes less harm than the
>> average vegan diet, what then? How does that effect the charge that
>> vegan's
>> make that we need to stop using animals as food?
>>
>
> It would show that a diversity of diets are acceptable.

To whom? Should vegans change their posture on this issue if I am correct?


>> >> Should I be lecturing vegans that
>> >> their choices fall short?
>>
>> > If you really feel they're not making every reasonable effort, sure,
>> > why not?
>>
>> I do think that they're efforts are reasonable, but my charge would be
>> that
>> their belief that the use of animals for food is immoral based on harm to
>> animals is hypocritical.
>>
>
> If the belief is unqualified, yes, that would be fair enough.

The only qualifications offered by vegans is that we could kill animals to
eat if there was no other food. Even that falls short of "equal
consideration". It totally fails to recognize the possibilty that a
non-vegan diet could be less harmful.


>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> I don't think there's any point attempting to dissect what exactly you've
>> been saying or haven't been saying, but I repeat, if vegans propose that
>> their diet is "a reasonable alternative" in reducing animal harm, then
>> nobody would argue.
>>
>
> Well, that's all I've been saying since I got here, and I've received
> untold scorn and abuse from all the antis, including you. So perhaps
> you should apologize and resolve to listen more carefully to what
> people say in the future.

That isn't all you've been saying, and you've deserved every bit of scorn
you've gotten and then some. You are a colossal twit.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 18, 7:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it is not
>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time. My
>> interest
>> in consuming chicken wins.
>>
>
> Well, Peter Singer would not be in unqualified agreement with you. He
> has a discussion of this in Chapter 5 of "Practical Ethics". Please
> don't whinge about my referring to books. We are discussing Peter
> Singer's views here, not my own. If you want to understand what those
> views are, you should read what he wrote.

I don't, I asked YOU.


>> >> > 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.
>>
>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are used in
>> the
>> phrase being defined.
>>
>
> See my reply to Ball.

No, give me a real definition.

>> > The issue is who
>> > has the most at stake.
>>
>> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense then the
>> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation. Therefore
>> the
>> consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how its weighted.
>>
>
> What Peter Singer advocates is equal consideration.

No it isn't.

>> >> > 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.
>>
>> Who wins, me or the chicken? I want your opinion.
>>
>
> I'm not a preference utilitarian. If I were, I wouldn't think it would
> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by just
> because you felt hungry, no.

Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important than the
life of a marginally sentient one?

> When the chicken was brought into
> existence because of your desire to eat it, the issue is more complex.

Do tell.

[..]
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You're the one who claimed that preference utilitarianism is consistent
>> wih
>> equal consideration. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>>
>
> It gives equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> sentient beings.

You don't have the slightest idea do you? You just type catch-phrases and
expect people to stand in awe of your intellect.


[..]

>>
>> Sure, but the fundamental issue is the use of animals as a food source,
>> and
>> he doesn't challenge that.
>>
>
> Well, actually, he does in "Practical Ethics", but he may have
> softened his views somewhat since then.

Maybe he flops around as the situation warrants, ARAs tend to do that.

>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> What do YOU think?
>>
>
> I don't agree with him.

Not Singer, you.

>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> What do YOU think?
>>
>
> I think this contention of Singer's is fairly plausible.

Not Singer, you.

>> >> >> >>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.
>>
>> I would add to that, being a chicken or a cow is nothing like being a
>> person. The difference in the subjective experience is huge. Animals,
>> except
>> perhaps higher apes, simply exist in the moment, which explains many of
>> their amazing abilities, and our fascination with them.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> The same reason they aren't campaigning to change a thousand other
>> examples
>> of injustice in the world, like genocide in Darfur or slave trade in
>> Russia,
>> people are busy living their lives. It's not because they don't think
>> it's
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Okay, fine. So most thoughtful people basically agree with me about
> animals and support the work I do.

Telemarketing? No they don't.

> Apparently they choose not to
> change their diets, but never mind.

What do you recommend, veganism? What a surprise.

> So why do I get so much flak here?

Because you're a colossal idiot, beyond anything that I ever imagined
possible. You ramble on and never say anything and when people call you on
it you cry like a baby. You think you're imparting great profound thoughts
but you just talk in circles.

[..]
>>
>> >> I
>> > really don't see what's wrong with offering to attempt to educate
>> > someone.
>>
>> That's amazing.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> You haven't tried to express it in plain English so I haven't had the
>> opportunity.
>>
>
> Yes, I have.

OK, maybe you've tried, but you have not succeeded. I accept the possibility
that you don't know how.

[..]

>> >> > 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.
>>
>> The ability to have a higher subjective experience is uniquely human. We
>> don't know to what extent people with limited abilities retain this
>> ability,
>> so we err on the side of caution.
>
> Then we should err on the side of caution in the case of nonhuman
> animals as well.

Why? There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the animals we use
for food possess any higher cognitive abilities. On the other hand, it is
very plausible that even impaired humans still do possess such abilities,
even in some hidden form. That's why we err on the side of caution with
humans. Besides it remains a completely implausible idea that the human race
could function while "erring on the side of caution" when dealing with
animals. We couldn't do it if we wanted to.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:33:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>>>>lives".
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>>>
>>>>Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>>>>lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral
>>>>consequence.
>>>
>>> So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
>>> why.
>>
>>Why do you keep calling it selfish when you are unable to explain why it's
>>selfish?
>
> I do explain why it's selfish, but you can't understand it so you
> necessarily can't appreciate it either.

You've never explained it, not once. You've never tried.

>
>>>Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
>>> the animals gain?
>>
>>Give me one reason to to consider what the animals gain.
>
> Because it's a necessary step in considering whether or not it's
> cruel to them to be raised for food.

It's obviously not a necessary step, because neither I, nor Jonathan nor
Swamp, nor any of a long list of anti-ARAs whose names you know well
"consider what the animals gain" and not one of us thinks its cruel to raise
animals for food. The fact that you think its necessary says something about
you, nothing else.

>>Describe one benefit that would accrue to one animal if I began
>>doing that right now.
>
> Nothing you think about can benefit any animal. What you do
> as a result of what you think about can. Insisting that people
> refuse to consider the animals' lives could never help any animals.

Stop moving the goalposts ****wit. I didn't say don't consider the animals
lives, I said it's unecessary to consider "what they get out of it".

> Getting people to consider the animals' lives leads to better AW.

Considering "what they get out of it" won't lead to better AW. If we think
animals already gain the benefit of getting to experience life maybe I'll
decide that's good enough, I don't need to do more.

> Better AW works against the misnomer, which is why you hate it.
> Duh, of course. You are in favor of the misnomer, and can't move
> away from it. Some aspects of your behavior show that you would
> like to, but you're still confused and afraid to try because it makes
> you feel dirty. The "dirty" feelings are a result of the purity of your
> selfishness, which traps you.

You're the one who believes that unless we "consider how the animals
benefit" by being born that we must necessarily think that raising them is
cruel. You're the one who thinks like an ARA, albeit a twisted and confused
one.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
> "ought to occur"?


If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
livestock?

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 17, 3:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[..]

>> 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.
>>
>
> They choose to financially support them, yes.

No different than if they went out to the farm and wrung their little necks
with their bare hands.

>> Stop writing "[merely] financially support", rupie, you
>> little smarmy thimbleful of shit.
>
> No. Stop absurdly trying to order people around and acting like a fool.

You tell him rupe, he's not the boss of you.

"Rupert" > wrote

> Why? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the interests of black
> people shouldn't be ignored? How do you propose to meet that burden of
> proof?

I'm sure negros are impressed that you are comparing their human rights with
chickens.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 18, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Jun 18, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> roups.com...
>>
>> >>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>> glegroups.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?
>> >> Because those preferences conflict with ours.
>>
>> > Well, I might as well say, "Why should I give anyone else's
>> > preferences any consideration, when they conflict with mine?"
>>
>> If you're talking about mere preferences, then yes, why
>> *should* you give them any consideration? But we're
>> not, rupie. When we talk about humans, we are talking
>> about rights, not merely preferences.
>
> Well, in that case you're rejecting preference utilitarianism. I
> thought you were addressing a question to the preference
> utilitarianism, why not restrict the preferences you consider to human
> preferences? If you're just rejecting preference utilitarianism
> outright, then that's a different argument. Of course, a rights
> theorist who maintains that all sentient humans and only sentient
> humans have rights also has to explain why that should be.
>


Ability and capability.. read the essay.

"Rupert" > wrote

[..]

> If I point out that existing institutions are based on discrimination
> that lacks justification,

The charge has to be plausible. It isn't sufficient that a small group of
wild-eyed fanatics "point something out". I could point out that women
routinely choose men as husbands, discriminating against many good dogs.
That is not a plausible argument, and no justification is needed except to
inform you that dogs are the wrong species.

> then the burden of proof is on those who
> would seek to justify those institutions.

No, the burden remains on you to establish that your charge is plausible,
you haven't, in fact everything you say in support of your charge only
undermines it by it's sheer brutal circularity and lack of coherence.

>If I lived in the nineteenth
> century and wanted to challenge the institution of enslaving black
> people, it would have been sufficient for me to point out that it was
> based on arbitrary discrimination and ask for a justification for that
> discrimination. How else could I have argued that the institution was
> wrong?

By arguing that skin colour was not a morally relevant criterion to
discriminate on, it's immaterial. Species is morally relevant because it
signals that an animal either has or lacks the ability and/or capability to
exhibit higher cognitive functions like advanced self-awareness, knowledge
of living in time and mortality. So far only humans have demonstrated this
cap/ability.

"Rudy Canoza"> wrote
> donnie can't give coherent reasons for his opposition to meat consumption,

Thats because I have none, I eat meat all the time.
Now tell us again why you have a guilt complex about animals.

"Kadaitcha Man"> wrote
> Don> wrote
>> "Kadaitcha Man"> wrote
>>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of
>>> eating protein-rich meat.
>>
>> Make that *raw* meat and you may be close.
>
> Homo Erectus Pekinensis is known to have tended fires as far back as
> 300,000
> years or more, perhaps 350,000, and there is evidence that Homo Erectus
> Pekinensis used fire to prepare food, amongst other things.

And he ate meat how prior to discovering fire?
Notice your qualifier word *developed* above.
You seem to want to pick an arbitrary time in history to support your
assertion, while I prefer to go back to the beginning.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
> 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.

You just make this stuff up as you go along don't you Rudy?
You can't show one post where I stated I don't consume meat, and certainly
nothing about veganism.
Notice how silly you look.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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, Ball? Why isn't it morally preferable to cause less
> suffering? Just once I'd like to hear the slightest reason.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but Rudy's comment is made from
whole cloth.
He made it up, as I have never claimed the things he's said.
In other words, he's a bold faced liar.
In about 20 mins I have a nice 3lb meatloaf coming out of the oven, and I'll
dump some gravy all over the top. Mmmmmm.........

On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Why? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the interests of black
> > people shouldn't be ignored? How do you propose to meet that burden of
> > proof?
>
> I'm sure negros are impressed that you are comparing their human rights with
> chickens.

Well, you tell me where the analogy breaks down. Sure you can say,
negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian humans
and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, inasmuch
as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof.

On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>> [..]
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
is not
> >>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
My
> >>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
> >> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
> >> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
> >> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
> >> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
>
> > This is nonsense
>
> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
>

That's not an argument. You wouldn't know anything about what you're
talking about anyway. If you want to criticize the existing
literature,
then engage with it.

> >>>>>> 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.
> >>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
used in
> >>> the phrase being defined.
> >> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
> >> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
>
> > Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
>
> No. There's no such thing as morality in
> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
> blabbering about entities' preferences.
>

Nonsense. Utilitarianism is just as much a moral theory as any other.
As pointed out a few times now, your own political philosophy
sometimes
appeals to utilitarian considerations.


> >>>> The issue is who
> >>>> has the most at stake.
> >>> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense
then the
> >>> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation.
Therefore
> >>> the consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how
its
> >>> weighted.
> >> Arbitrarily, so that the bullshit sophist "A.L."
> >> utilitarian "wins" his little rhetorical game.
>
> > Nonsense. It's not weighted.
>
> Bullshit. You just don't know what the ****ing hell
> you're talking about. Of *course* there are weights,
> you stupid ****. But you ****s just make them up.

No, that's rubbish. You are the one who doesn't know what he's
talking
about. If you want to prove otherwise, make an argument. Preferably
one
which refers to the literature.

On Jun 18, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.
>
> > Most of the people I speak with are perfectly polite to me, and
many
> > are pleased to receive my call.
>
> That's a ****ing lie.
>

No. You wouldn't have a clue about it. You're very fond of making
confident assertions about things you wouldn't have a clue about.

> >>> 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
>
> It's a ****ing laugh riot, rupie. What a ****!
>

I know a lot of people who've just finished a Ph.D. who are in the
same
situation: it's going to take them time to find jobs which match
their
qualifications. How long did it take you?

> >>>>>>> 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
>
> Wrong. It assumes there are only two ways, and that's
> bullshit. "One way or ANother", you stupid blithering
> ****.
>

No, there are only two ways. The proposition is either true or false.
And you don't have a clue either way. Silly fool.

> >> But I do have a clue - in fact, much more than that.
>
> > On the basis of what?
>
> Education, experience, innate ability.
>

None of which bears on the issue you claim to have a clue about. You
know nothing about my life and my level of ability, Ball.


> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > Okay
>
> Yes, okay.
>

Silly fool.

> >>>>>>> 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 you making exclamation marks about here, you weirdo? Okay,
> > so you think I'll be stuck in telemarketing for the next five
years.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! Goddamnit, rupie, I'm about to split
> my sides!
>

Strange fellow. Yes, I agree, the suggestion is pretty amusing.

> > I've just completed quite a good Ph.D. thesis in maths
>
> As if anyone is going to take your [highly
> self-interested] word for it, you ****.
>

They won't need to. My supervisor and others will testify to my
ability. In any case, the fact that I have completed the thesis and
will be
awarded the degree will increase my employability.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> What the **** is wrong with you, *writing* out "sigh"?
> You ****ing baboon.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > It gets more convincing
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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. The fact that you spend a
HUGE
> >> amount of time here - you really are a wheezy windbag - instead of
> >> doing research speaks volumes.
>
> > Well, that's a very interesting view you have, but the bottom
> > line is, I'm extremely well-read in many different areas of
> > mathematics,
>
> But not *doing* anything there. SO it was a waste of
> the taxpayers' money.
>

No, it wasn't. I did some interesting research, and I'll probably do
more. Also, my skills will soon be put to good use in some way or
other.

> > It may well be that I'll never win the Fields Medal
>
> That's a guarantee.

That's a conjecture made in utter ignorance. I have some degree of
competence to judge the matter, you have none. The bottom line is no-
one
really knows at this stage. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Why do you think
it's so significant if I won't win the Fields Medal? Your desperation
to
try to put other people down is truly pathetic.

On Jun 18, 3:29 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jun 17, 3:17 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> > They choose to financially support them, yes.
>
> No different than if they went out to the farm and wrung their little necks
> with their bare hands.
>
> >> Stop writing "[merely] financially support", rupie, you
> >> little smarmy thimbleful of shit.
>
> > No. Stop absurdly trying to order people around and acting like a fool.
>
> You tell him rupe, he's not the boss of you.





Baby Goo it is too late for you to help Pappy Goo.

Flailing your tiny fists will avail him nothing.

He's had his ass kicked here repeatedly.






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

On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oglegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a26g2000pre. googlegroups.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.
> >>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way.
> >>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge
applies
> >>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least
as
> >>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else.
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>> Circular.
> >>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what
> >>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how
much is
> >>> at stake for the affected parties.
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to
> >>>> meet, is on you to show that it should.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something,
> >> based on assertions you make. You must support the
> >> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well,
> >> why not?" is not support.
>
> >> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
> >> - always.
>
> > If I point out that existing institutions are based on
discrimination
> > that lacks justification
>
> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the
> lack of justification. You fail.
>
> ****wit.

That's utterly absurd. If someone maintains that there's a
justification, it's clearly their job to provide it. You utterly
incredible fool.