Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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 > egroups.com... > >>>>> On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > ooglegroups.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. You're such a sophisticated debater, Ball. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything in your >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself the >> moral >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal >> deaths, >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from others, and >> to >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified discrimination. >> The >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. > > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally permissible > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not yet > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make a > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I am > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully I > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except that > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying factory- > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, probably on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. You ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to others. > There are no more > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance respondents. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jun 19, 12:51 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in >> >> > On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > 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. >> >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that would >> compel us to treat them similarly. > > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and chickens > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by "similar". > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we > treat them similarly to typical humans. Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and into application. > When you say "There are > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding my > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally > relevant difference. I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not conceding the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to suggest. > There are distinctions between typical humans and > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests with > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly similar > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the word discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a human and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. Moralstat99.doc makes this point effectively. If > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, for > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, even > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations are > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and deprivation. Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those effects in animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do you claim chickens possess? >> The only similarity is that morally >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, therefore we >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of >> chickens, >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. >> > Sure you can say, >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian humans >> >> Not similar, equal, identical. >> >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, inasmuch >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. >> >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way relieve you >> of >> the burden to show that it is valid. > > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what I > am trying to explain to you. You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant similarity exists without defining it. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> [..] > > >> >> >> 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. > > >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything in your > >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself the > >> moral > >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal > >> deaths, > >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from others, and > >> to > >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified discrimination. > >> The > >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. > > > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally permissible > > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On > > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products > > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not yet > > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not > > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy > > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. > > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make a > > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in > > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I am > > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully I > > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like > > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions > > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except that > > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying factory- > > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. > > Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, probably > on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. You > ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to others. > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed" which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. I simply made the statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any indication why this is an unreasonable stance. > > There are no more > > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you > > I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance > respondents. You took it upon yourself to call me a hypocrite, as all the antis have repeatedly done for so many years, and I simply pointed out for the thousandth time that there is not the slightest rational foundation for this accusation which does not apply equally well to you people. You say I never say anything of substance, well, this is something of substance that I have been saying for many years in response to the arguments you constantly make. None of you have ever got it, and yet you call me a colossal idiot. Anyway, this time round you apparently had nothing to say in response, and instead of retracting your claim, let alone apologizing, you said "I don't care, get over it" and called me high-maintenance, and seemed to be under the impression that you were the one who was having their patience taxed. Anyway, I don't need to "get over it", I'm not worked up about it, I'm simply pointing out, yet again, that your behaviour really is utterly absurd, foolish and indefensible. I really don't know why I waste my time with you. I know better than to expect an apology, but I would have thought it would be reasonable to expect at least a retraction, since you don't seem to have anything to say in response to my rebuttal. Do you finally acknowledge that there are no rational grounds for calling me a hypocrite? Or do you still maintain that I'm guilty of extraordinary hypocrisy? If so, how about actually addressing my arguments and explaining why there are grounds for calling me hypocritical which don't apply equally well to you? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j4g2000prf. googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a26g2000pr e.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. > > No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > change. Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests of fair-skinned people". And suppose the defenders of slavery had responded "No, that would entail overthrowing the status quo, so the burden of proof is on you to explain why we should do that". Would they have been right? If so, then how should this burden of proof have been met? If not, then what is the relevant difference to the argument I have been presenting? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 12:51 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in > > >> > On Jun 18, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > 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. > > >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that would > >> compel us to treat them similarly. > > > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and chickens > > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach > > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. > > That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by "similar". > What did you mean, then? > > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give > > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we > > treat them similarly to typical humans. > > Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar > interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and into > application. > Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical situation and you've told me you're not interested. > > When you say "There are > > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are > > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding my > > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally > > relevant difference. > > I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not conceding > the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to suggest. > No, I'm not suggesting that. I think that your attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases (which I'll get around to addressing shortly) is still consistent with the basic point that I am making here, which is the formal principle of justice, although perhaps not with equal consideration. > > There are distinctions between typical humans and > > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the > > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests with > > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a > > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with > > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly similar > > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. > > It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the word > discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a human > and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. Moralstat99.doc > makes this point effectively. > The point being made is that *no* amount of dissimilarity is any good reason for refusing to give equal consideration to relevantly similar interests. There is some dispute about the extent to which there are dissimilarities between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people. But this dispute has no bearing on the issue of whether their interests should be given equal consideration. > If > > > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent > > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some > > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of > > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, for > > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate > > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar > > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, even > > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs > > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided > > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but > > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was > > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations are > > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. > > You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant > characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and deprivation. > Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those effects in > animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do you > claim chickens possess? > Um, yeah, that's pretty much all I'm saying at this point: we should make them suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy our trivial interests. That would have fairly radical implications. > >> The only similarity is that morally > >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, therefore we > >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of > >> chickens, > >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. > > I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. > I agree, we could just argue "chickens suffer, so we should avoid unnecessarily causing them to suffer", but apparently people who run battery-cage farms don't find this argument compelling, so we try to reinforce it with the argument from equal consideration. > >> > Sure you can say, > >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian humans > > >> Not similar, equal, identical. > > >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, inasmuch > >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. > > >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way relieve you > >> of > >> the burden to show that it is valid. > > > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what I > > am trying to explain to you. > > You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant similarity > exists without defining it. There are some relevant similarities and some relevant dissimilarities. I can't discern any difference between our views about what those are. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> That's utterly absurd. >> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >> change. > > Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > of fair-skinned people". They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and you can't. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j4g2000pr f.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a26g2000 pre.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. > >> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >> change. > > > Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > > abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > > explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > > dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > > of fair-skinned people". > > They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > you can't. There's really no need for foul language. Just elaborate your point. *How* did they make the case? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>> change. >>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>> of fair-skinned people". >> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >> you can't. > > There's really no need for foul language. You practically beg for abuse. > Just elaborate your point. > *How* did they make the case? Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness is really astonishing. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j4g2000 prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a26g20 00pre.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. > >>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>> change. > >>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>> of fair-skinned people". > >> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >> you can't. > > > There's really no need for foul language. > > You practically beg for abuse. > No, I don't. I haven't given you the slightest rational cause to call me a ****. You've given me plenty of rational cause to abuse you, but for the most part I'm perfectly civil. There's no excuse for that sort of language under any circumstances in any case. Obviously your parents didn't raise you very well. > > Just elaborate your point. > > *How* did they make the case? > > Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to > you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look > it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their > methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. > I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- skinned people, and that this is analogous to the case for improving our treatment of nonhuman animals. I maintain that in both cases, this is a perfectly reasonable argument. If you wish to maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people was based on something different and is not analogous, then it's your job to convince me of that by means of rational argument. You're not attempting to do so. If you wish to maintain that such an argument would be flawed in both cases, then it's your job to convince me of that by rational argument. You haven't attempted this, either. If you're not interested in applying yourself to the task of arguing your point, then why do you bother? > But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > is really astonishing. We've made a good case. You haven't made a decent attempt at answering it. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>> change. >>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>> you can't. >>> There's really no need for foul language. >> You practically beg for abuse. >> > > No, I don't. Yes, you do. >>> Just elaborate your point. >>> *How* did they make the case? >> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to >> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look >> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their >> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. >> > > I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was > that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests > equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- > skinned people, You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted to do with respect to animals. It's because you know you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who doesn't like to work. >> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" >> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness >> is really astonishing. > > We've made a good case. You haven't. You've assumed that which you must demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j4g20 00prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a26g 2000pre.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. > >>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>> change. > >>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>> you can't. > >>> There's really no need for foul language. > >> You practically beg for abuse. > > > No, I don't. > > Yes, you do. > You're such a child, Ball. What on earth motivates to re-iterate your empty assertion? In your warped worldview, abuse is justifiable on no provocation, simply because the person has given you rational grounds to look down on them. That's not the worldview of civilized people. I have plenty of rational grounds to look down on you, but I don't abuse you. > >>> Just elaborate your point. > >>> *How* did they make the case? > >> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to > >> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look > >> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their > >> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. > > > I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was > > that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests > > equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- > > skinned people, > > You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the > abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted > to do with respect to animals. Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. I, on the other hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to deny it. I don't think you can make a positive case for equal consideration. If someone maintains that black people just deserve less consideration than white people, I don't think there's any way to refute him except by pointing out that he's making an arbitrary discrimination without pointing out a morally relevant difference. You think otherwise. You think that arbitrary discrimination is okay sometimes, and that the burden of proof is on those who wish to see it ended, and that in the case of ending the discrimination against black people this burden could actually have been met. Okay, well, convince me of your view. Show me how the burden of proof was met. > It's because you know > you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who > doesn't like to work. > You really are quite absurd. My achievements amply demonstrate that I am very hardworking. > >> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > >> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > >> is really astonishing. > > > We've made a good case. > > You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. You've got to specify a morally relevant difference which justifies the discrimination. It's called the formal principle of justice. You haven't shown why we should reject it. Nor have you shown that widely held views about human equality can be defended without recourse to the formal principle of justice. If you want to convince me of your view, you've got to argue it. All you're doing is babbling. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>>>> you can't. >>>>> There's really no need for foul language. >>>> You practically beg for abuse. >>> No, I don't. >> Yes, you do. >> > > You're such a child No. You *do* invite abuse. >>>>> Just elaborate your point. >>>>> *How* did they make the case? >>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to >>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look >>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their >>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. >>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was >>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests >>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- >>> skinned people, >> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the >> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted >> to do with respect to animals. > > Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the > abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. Exactly so. > I, on the other > hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to > deny it. And that's wrong. You're making an assertion, and failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, because the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion. >> It's because you know >> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who >> doesn't like to work. >> > > You really are quite absurd. No. >>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" >>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness >>>> is really astonishing. >>> We've made a good case. >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion, and you can't meet it. You'll never meet it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j4g 2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26730@a2 6g2000pre.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. > >>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>>>> change. > >>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>>>> you can't. > >>>>> There's really no need for foul language. > >>>> You practically beg for abuse. > >>> No, I don't. > >> Yes, you do. > > > You're such a child > > No. > > You *do* invite abuse. > Endlessly repeating absurdities doesn't make them any less absurd. Your abuse is utterly without reasonable motivation, and is the mark of a poorly-socialized, uncivilized lout. It degrades only you. > >>>>> Just elaborate your point. > >>>>> *How* did they make the case? > >>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to > >>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look > >>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their > >>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. > >>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was > >>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests > >>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- > >>> skinned people, > >> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the > >> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted > >> to do with respect to animals. > > > Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the > > abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. > > Exactly so. > > > I, on the other > > hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to > > deny it. > > And that's wrong. Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of proof to meet? > You're making an assertion, and > failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to > disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, > because the burden of proof is on you to support your > assertion. > You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies without supporting it. Why should someone be entitled to say that white people are entitled to more consideration than black people without meeting a burden of proof? Why is the burden of proof on those who would maintain that they are entitled to equal consideration? And *how could this burden of proof be met*, supposing it to exist? I don't think it could. You've given me no reason to think otherwise. > >> It's because you know > >> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who > >> doesn't like to work. > > > You really are quite absurd. > > No. > And amusing. > >>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > >>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > >>>> is really astonishing. > >>> We've made a good case. > >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > > > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. > > The burden of proof is on you to support your > assertion, So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? > and you can't meet it. The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if they'd actually had to meet it. You convince me otherwise. > You'll never meet > it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>>>>>> you can't. >>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. >>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. >>>>> No, I don't. >>>> Yes, you do. >>> You're such a child >> No. >> >> You *do* invite abuse. >> > > Endlessly repeating absurdities doesn't make them any less absurd. > Your abuse is utterly without reasonable motivation, and is the mark > of a poorly-socialized, uncivilized lout. It degrades only you. > >>>>>>> Just elaborate your point. >>>>>>> *How* did they make the case? >>>>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to >>>>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look >>>>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their >>>>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. >>>>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was >>>>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests >>>>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- >>>>> skinned people, >>>> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the >>>> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted >>>> to do with respect to animals. >>> Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the >>> abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. >> Exactly so. >> >>> I, on the other >>> hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to >>> deny it. >> And that's wrong. > > Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to > consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of > proof to meet? Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, for the same reason: you're making the assertion that you wish others to accept. >> You're making an assertion, and >> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to >> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, >> because the burden of proof is on you to support your >> assertion. >> > > You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies > without supporting it. Because the support for my assertion is already well known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. >>>> It's because you know >>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who >>>> doesn't like to work. >>> You really are quite charming. >> yes. >> > > And brilliant. > >>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" >>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness >>>>>> is really astonishing. >>>>> We've made a good case. >>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. >>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. >> The burden of proof is on you to support your >> assertion, > > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. >> and you can't meet it. > > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > they'd actually had to meet it. They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally entitled to equal consideration. You'll never even get started, because you know in your tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. >> You'll never meet >> it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water. > > |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880@j 4g2000prf.googlegroups.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. > >>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>>>>>> change. > >>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>>>>>> you can't. > >>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. > >>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. > >>>>> No, I don't. > >>>> Yes, you do. > >>> You're such a child > >> No. > > >> You *do* invite abuse. > > > Endlessly repeating absurdities doesn't make them any less absurd. > > Your abuse is utterly without reasonable motivation, and is the mark > > of a poorly-socialized, uncivilized lout. It degrades only you. > > >>>>>>> Just elaborate your point. > >>>>>>> *How* did they make the case? > >>>>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to > >>>>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look > >>>>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their > >>>>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. > >>>>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was > >>>>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests > >>>>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- > >>>>> skinned people, > >>>> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the > >>>> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted > >>>> to do with respect to animals. > >>> Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the > >>> abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. > >> Exactly so. > > >>> I, on the other > >>> hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to > >>> deny it. > >> And that's wrong. > > > Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to > > consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of > > proof to meet? > > Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people > that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal > consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, > for the same reason: you're making the assertion that > you wish others to accept. > Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. You can't say the burden of proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to meet. It was their opponents' job to refute them. If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet, then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what you're claiming. So make up your mind. Where does the burden of proof lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those who deny it? It can't be on both. It must be on one or the other, and you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal consideration. > >> You're making an assertion, and > >> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to > >> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, > >> because the burden of proof is on you to support your > >> assertion. > > > You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies > > without supporting it. > > Because the support for my assertion is already well > known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. > Ridiculous nonsense, you stupid fool. My view about where the burden of proof lies is based on a well-known and widely-accepted principle in moral philosophy. You're being incoherent, you're saying the burden of proof lies on both people. That's impossible. > >>>> It's because you know > >>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who > >>>> doesn't like to work. > >>> You really are quite charming. > >> yes. > > > And brilliant. > Thank you for the entertainment. > >>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > >>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > >>>>>> is really astonishing. > >>>>> We've made a good case. > >>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > >>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > >>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > >>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > >>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. > >> The burden of proof is on you to support your > >> assertion, > > > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? > > Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since > antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. > Ball, you can rest assured I know a lot more about logic than you. Mathematical logic is one of my fields of interest, I'm very knowledgeable about it, and I'm writing a paper relating the ideas in my thesis to mathematical logic at the moment, as a matter of fact. Given a pair {P, ~P}, the burden of proof cannot be both on those who advocate P, and those who advocate ~P. That's incoherent, it's self- contradictory given the meaning of "burden of proof". It has to be one or the other. You have to make up your mind which. I say the burden of proof is on those who advocate discrimination. > >> and you can't meet it. > > > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > > they'd actually had to meet it. > > They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than > simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others > disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally > entitled to equal consideration. > Fascinating. How did they do it? > You'll never even get started, because you know in your > tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* > morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't > have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely > dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any > moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy > girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of > moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The > façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. Silly fool. I don't buy into your stupid ideas about what constitutes masculinity, and I couldn't care less whether people see me as "masculine" in any case. So, you think I know that nonhuman animals are not morally entitled to equal consideration. How exactly do I know this? Is it just a self- evident axiom? What do you say to someone who finds it a self-evident axiom that black people are not entitled to equal consideration? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>>>>>>>> you can't. >>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. >>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. >>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>> Yes, you do. >>>>> You're such a child >>>> No. >>>> You *do* invite abuse. >>> Endlessly repeating absurdities Didn't happen from me. >>>>>>>>> Just elaborate your point. >>>>>>>>> *How* did they make the case? >>>>>>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to >>>>>>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look >>>>>>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their >>>>>>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. >>>>>>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was >>>>>>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests >>>>>>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- >>>>>>> skinned people, >>>>>> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the >>>>>> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted >>>>>> to do with respect to animals. >>>>> Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the >>>>> abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. >>>> Exactly so. >>>>> I, on the other >>>>> hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to >>>>> deny it. >>>> And that's wrong. >>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to >>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of >>> proof to meet? >> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people >> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal >> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, >> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that >> you wish others to accept. >> > > Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. It's perfectly coherent, stupid. *Whoever* is making the assertion, regardless of which direction it goes, has the burden of supporting the assertion. > You can't say the burden of > proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. Nor did I say it, you ****witted moron. I was talking about two alternative, competing assertions, either of which someone might make to someone else. Whoever made either assertion would bear the burden of proof of it. Thus, if you say that blue-eyed people are entitled to greater consideration, a brown-eyed person might say, "prove it", and the burden of proof would be on you. But, if instead you said to a blue-eyed person that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal consideration, the blue-eyed person might say "prove it", and the burden would be on you to prove it. The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. This is elementary, you ****wit. >>>> You're making an assertion, and >>>> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to >>>> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, >>>> because the burden of proof is on you to support your >>>> assertion. >>> You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies >>> without supporting it. >> Because the support for my assertion is already well >> known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. >> > > My view about where the burden > of proof lies is based on a well-known and widely-accepted principle > in moral philosophy. Prove it. >>>>>> It's because you know >>>>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who >>>>>> doesn't like to work. >>>>> You really are quite charming. >>>> yes. >>> And brilliant. > > Thank you for the ass-kicking. > >>>>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" >>>>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness >>>>>>>> is really astonishing. >>>>>>> We've made a good case. >>>>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >>>>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >>>>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >>>>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. >>>>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. >>>> The burden of proof is on you to support your >>>> assertion, >>> So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? >> Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since >> antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. >> > > Rudy, you can rest assured I know a lot more about logic than you. No. >>>> and you can't meet it. >>> The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if >>> they'd actually had to meet it. >> They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than >> simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others >> disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally >> entitled to equal consideration. >> > > Fascinating. How did they do it? Go look it up. The fact is, they did it: the majority of the U.S. already rejected slavery before the civil war. Their methods are not important to me; they might be to you. What is important is that the abolitionists recognized that they had the burden of showing the moral equality of races to skeptics, and they met their burden. You haven't. And, of course, you can't, because you fundamentally don't believe your own position. >> You'll never even get started, because you know in your >> tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* >> morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't >> have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely >> dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any >> moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy >> girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of >> moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The >> façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. > > Silly fool. non sequitur |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything in >> >> your >> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself the >> >> moral >> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal >> >> deaths, >> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from others, >> >> and >> >> to >> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified discrimination. >> >> The >> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. >> >> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally permissible >> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On >> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products >> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not yet >> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not >> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy >> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. >> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make a >> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in >> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I am >> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully I >> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like >> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions >> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except that >> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying factory- >> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. >> >> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, >> probably >> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. You >> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to >> others. >> > > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating > animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You > want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed" > which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. Factory farming of vegetables, grain and fruit: the use of large machines for cultivating, fertilizing, seeding, spraying, weeding and harvesting, all which make it impossible for wildlife to be seen or protected from the effects of those incursions. Davis showed that even one pass of a hay mower had a devastating impact on the population of field mice. Then there is the impact of the substances themselves, not the least of which, but one not often mentioned is chemical nitrogen which destroys the biodiversity of the soil that supports a rich community of organic life. Factory farming of vegetables is far more deadly than factory farming of animals. > I simply made the > statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy > factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally > impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any > indication why this is an unreasonable stance. It's only morally impermissible in the shadow of your own intolerance. I realize that your self-image is caught up in the notion that you have risen above the killing habits of other men, but I've get news for you. > >> > There are no more >> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you >> >> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance >> respondents. > > You took it upon yourself That's right, get over it, your whining is more tiresome than your hypocrisy. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >> >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that >> >> would >> >> compel us to treat them similarly. >> >> > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and chickens >> > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach >> > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. >> >> That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by "similar". >> > > What did you mean, then? Protection of their very lives with something like murder laws that we are protected by. The relevant similarity between humans and chickens is the ability to feel pain. > >> > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give >> > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we >> > treat them similarly to typical humans. >> >> Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar >> interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and >> into >> application. >> > > Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which > clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical situation > and you've told me you're not interested. To hell with "the literature", that's a diversion. Say it in your own words. > >> > When you say "There are >> > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are >> > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding my >> > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally >> > relevant difference. >> >> I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not conceding >> the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to >> suggest. >> > > No, I'm not suggesting that. I think that your attempted rebuttal of > the argument from marginal cases (which I'll get around to addressing > shortly) is still consistent with the basic point that I am making > here, which is the formal principle of justice, although perhaps not > with equal consideration. Whatever that is supposed to mean. > >> > There are distinctions between typical humans and >> > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the >> > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests with >> > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a >> > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with >> > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly similar >> > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. >> >> It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the word >> discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a human >> and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. Moralstat99.doc >> makes this point effectively. >> > > The point being made is that *no* amount of dissimilarity is any good > reason for refusing to give equal consideration to relevantly similar > interests. Such as? > There is some dispute about the extent to which there are > dissimilarities between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people. But this > dispute has no bearing on the issue of whether their interests should > be given equal consideration. > > >> If >> >> > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent >> > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some >> > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of >> > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, for >> > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate >> > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar >> > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, even >> > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs >> > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided >> > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but >> > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was >> > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations are >> > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. >> >> You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant >> characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and >> deprivation. >> Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those effects >> in >> animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do >> you >> claim chickens possess? >> > > Um, yeah, that's pretty much all I'm saying at this point: we should > make them suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy our trivial > interests. That would have fairly radical implications. What else could it mean? > >> >> The only similarity is that morally >> >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, therefore >> >> we >> >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of >> >> chickens, >> >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. >> >> I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. >> > > I agree, we could just argue "chickens suffer, so we should avoid > unnecessarily causing them to suffer", but apparently people who run > battery-cage farms don't find this argument compelling, so we try to > reinforce it with the argument from equal consideration. I don't find that useful. Even as a person sympathetic to the strongest possible welfare measures, "equal consideration" seems to me like a collossal misnomer for an ideal. >> >> > Sure you can say, >> >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian >> >> > humans >> >> >> Not similar, equal, identical. >> >> >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, >> >> > inasmuch >> >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. >> >> >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way relieve >> >> you >> >> of >> >> the burden to show that it is valid. >> >> > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what I >> > am trying to explain to you. >> >> You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant >> similarity >> exists without defining it. > > There are some relevant similarities and some relevant > dissimilarities. I can't discern any difference between our views > about what those are. I can, you are focused around the rights notions of AR which are something else again. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: [..] >> > We've made a good case. >> >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. You've > got to specify a morally relevant difference which justifies the > discrimination. It's called the formal principle of justice. You > haven't shown why we should reject it. Nor have you shown that widely > held views about human equality can be defended without recourse to > the formal principle of justice. The basis for discrimination is sentience, the very same basis that you use to justify why it's acceptable to slaughter bugs. The argument from marginal cases fails because marginal humans still possess some human quality that we value, some possibility of a rich inner life, even though they may appear severely impaired to normal people. As Wetlesen puts it, they are moral persons even if they lack the capability to be moral actors. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> The burden of proof is on you to support your >> assertion, > > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? Because every assertion carries a burden of proof, especially if it challenges conventional wisdom. You don't assert that a dog is no different from a dandelion then demand that unless we disprove it to your satisfaction that it must be true. In this instance, you yourself have acknowledged that there are many major fundamental differences between humans and chickens. Now you say that those differences are not "morally relevant", but according to every commonly understood measure of criteria they are. >> and you can't meet it. > > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > they'd actually had to meet it. You convince me otherwise. They did meet it, they convinced us that humanity was the morally relevant factor to be granted rights, and argued successfully that negros had it. At least that is the essence of the debate in retrospect if not how it actually played out. >> You'll never meet >> it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> So, you think I know that nonhuman animals are not morally entitled to > equal consideration. How exactly do I know this? Is it just a self- > evident axiom? It's not self-evident, you learned it. Like a dope you're trying to unlearn it, but you're not convincing anyone except other dopes. > What do you say to someone who finds it a self-evident > axiom that black people are not entitled to equal consideration? I'd say to them that they need to learn, equality of the races was a milestone in the history of human morality, |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Following Dutch's reply to this ranting-and-raving post
of rupie's, I had to go back and revisit it. Rupert wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to >>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of >>> proof to meet? >> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people >> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal >> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, >> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that >> you wish others to accept. >> > > Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. No, it isn't. You *plainly* didn't understand what I wrote. > You can't say the burden of > proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. Nor *did* I say that, rupie. Re-read it. > Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining > that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were > not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to > meet. No, I never maintained that. Just how far up your rectum did you have to reach to find that little nugget, rupie? It's shit. I never said anything like that. We never, at any point, were talking about what those who supported unequal consideration for Negroes (it's a proper noun, you idiot) said, because in their society, it was just assumed; they didn't go around making any assertions about it. But suppose that a southerner who supported slavery, or at least some form of unequal treatment for Negroes, had gone to the north for a visit. And suppose further that the place he visited had recognized, in a basic sense, complete political and legal and moral equality among different races and ethnicities - so much so that no one who accepted that equality ever thought it necessary to state the case for it, because it was just reality. Now suppose this southerner is astonished at this, and wants to tell the northerners that they've got it all wrong, that Negroes do not deserve equal moral (and thus political and legal) consideration. Where does the burden of proof now lay, rupie? It plainly lays with the southerner, who is the one making an assertion. > It was their opponents' job to refute them. It was the opponents' - the abolitionists' - job to support their assertion that Negroes were entitled to equal consideration, and they met it. You can't meet your similar burden. > If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet, They didn't have any burden of proof because they weren't making any assertions at all, rupie. They were simply going about life as they had always known it. > then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't > get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what > you're claiming. No, rupie, it would not have been. Those asserting the moral equality of Negroes would have had the burden. *Anyone* making such an assertion, regardless of the direction of the assertion, always has the burden of proof. > So make up your mind. It already was, and is. > Where does the burden of proof > lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those > who deny it? It lies with whomever is making an assertion trying to persuade someone else of some position contrary to the one the listener holds _ex ante_. If it's a segregationist trying to persuade an equal-consideration adherent that consideration shouldn't be equal, then the burden is on the segregationist. If the roles are reversed, then the burden is on the equal-consideration proponent. The burden is always on the person making an assertion intended to persuade. > It can't be on both. I never said it was, rupie. You misread in order to think I did. I said it could be *either*, depending on who was talking to whom. > It must be on one or the other, and > you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal > consideration. And I'm correct, given the context. The problem for you in this, rupie, is that you are so incoherently convinced of the *intrinsic* rightness of what you believe, that you want to consider it axiomatic. This is a very surprising position for someone allegedly with a Ph.D. in mathematics. In math, there are theorems that *become* axioms, but they don't start out that way. Once a theorem is proved, it may be subsequently taken as axiomatic in the elaboration and proof of other theorems, but only because the truth of the axiom was already proved, rather than simply assumed out of thin air. You *want* the proposition that animals deserve equal moral consideration to be considered axiomatic, rupie, but it is not. That's why there's still so much debate on it. Your desire is motivated by a) your irrationally passionate gut-level, not intellectual, attachment to animals ("Bambi" syndrome) b) your basic philosophical laziness and inability You don't *want* to have to prove the propostion, because you're a lazy, narcissistic **** who likes the easy life on your imaginary moral pedestal. You like thinking of yourself as morally superior merely because of having declared yourself free of cruelty to animals. Your position is bullshit. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516.306880 @j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.2673 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>>>>>>>> change. > >>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>>>>>>>> you can't. > >>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. > >>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. > >>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>> Yes, you do. > >>>>> You're such a child > >>>> No. > >>>> You *do* invite abuse. > >>> Endlessly repeating absurdities > > Didn't happen from me. > Yes, it did, it's just that you lack insight into how absurd you are. > >>>>>>>>> Just elaborate your point. > >>>>>>>>> *How* did they make the case? > >>>>>>>> Not important for my purpose, which is to explain to > >>>>>>>> you that you have *not* made yours. You could go look > >>>>>>>> it up if you were interested in trying to adopt their > >>>>>>>> methods, but that's going to be on your time, not mine. > >>>>>>> I maintain that the case for treating dark-skinned people better was > >>>>>>> that there were no rational grounds for not giving their interests > >>>>>>> equal consideration with the relevantly similar interests of fair- > >>>>>>> skinned people, > >>>>>> You've got to *show* this, rupie, and that's what the > >>>>>> abolitionists did, but which you haven't even attempted > >>>>>> to do with respect to animals. > >>>>> Right. You maintain there's an obligation to show it, and the > >>>>> abolitionists met this burden whereas we haven't. > >>>> Exactly so. > >>>>> I, on the other > >>>>> hand, maintain that the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to > >>>>> deny it. > >>>> And that's wrong. > >>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to > >>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of > >>> proof to meet? > >> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people > >> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal > >> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, > >> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that > >> you wish others to accept. > > > Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. > > It's perfectly coherent, stupid. *Whoever* is making > the assertion, regardless of which direction it goes, > has the burden of supporting the assertion. > No, that's not coherent. You don't understand how burden of proof arguments work. You can't be innocent until proven guilty, and guilty until proven innocent at the same time. We've got a situation where two people are making contradictory assertions. Saying that one of them has the burden of proof means that the opposing position should be accepted unless and until they can successfully argue theirs. You can't coherently say they both have the burden of proof. > > You can't say the burden of > > proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. > > Nor did I say it, you ****witted moron. I was talking > about two alternative, competing assertions, either of > which someone might make to someone else. Whoever made > either assertion would bear the burden of proof of it. > Thus, if you say that blue-eyed people are entitled > to greater consideration, a brown-eyed person might > say, "prove it", and the burden of proof would be on > you. But, if instead you said to a blue-eyed person > that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal > consideration, the blue-eyed person might say "prove > it", and the burden would be on you to prove it. > So, by your own account, when you say that animals are not entitled to equal consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. So let's hear it. > The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of > proof. This is elementary, you ****wit. > No, it's elementary that burden of proof arguments don't work the way you think they do. > >>>> You're making an assertion, and > >>>> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to > >>>> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, > >>>> because the burden of proof is on you to support your > >>>> assertion. > >>> You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies > >>> without supporting it. > >> Because the support for my assertion is already well > >> known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. > > > My view about where the burden > > of proof lies is based on a well-known and widely-accepted principle > > in moral philosophy. > > Prove it. > The formal principle of justice. Someone who maintains that two cases should be treated differently is obliged to point out a morally relevant difference between them. > >>>>>> It's because you know > >>>>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who > >>>>>> doesn't like to work. > >>>>> You really are quite charming. > >>>> yes. > >>> And brilliant. > > > Thank you for the ass-kicking. > > >>>>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > >>>>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > >>>>>>>> is really astonishing. > >>>>>>> We've made a good case. > >>>>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > >>>>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > >>>>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > >>>>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > >>>>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. > >>>> The burden of proof is on you to support your > >>>> assertion, > >>> So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? > >> Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since > >> antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. > > > Rudy, you can rest assured I know a lot more about logic than you. > > No. > You really are a funny clown, Ball. > >>>> and you can't meet it. > >>> The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > >>> they'd actually had to meet it. > >> They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than > >> simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others > >> disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally > >> entitled to equal consideration. > > > Fascinating. How did they do it? > > Go look it up. The fact is, they did it: the majority > of the U.S. already rejected slavery before the civil > war. Their methods are not important to me; they might > be to you. What is important is that the abolitionists > recognized that they had the burden of showing the > moral equality of races to skeptics, and they met their > burden. You haven't. I don't agree that there is any disanalogy between the two cases. I maintain that in both cases there is a presumption of equal consideration that was not overturned. No positive case is required beyond that. You, on the other hand, maintain that a positive case is required and that it was provided in the case of discrimination against black people but not in the case of discrimination against animals. Well, if you maintain that, it's your job to demonstrate it to me. Show me how the abolitionists managed to make a positive case for the equality of races, beyond just saying there was a presumption in favour of equal consideration which hadn't been overturned. It would appear that you're just assuming that this is the case and that you haven't bothered to actually check, otherwise you would tell me how they did it. Well, I maintain that you're wrong. It's your job to prove otherwise. > And, of course, you can't, > because you fundamentally don't believe your own position. > Silly clown. > >> You'll never even get started, because you know in your > >> tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* > >> morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't > >> have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely > >> dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any > >> moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy > >> girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of > >> moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The > >> façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. > > > Silly fool. > > non sequitur Very sequitur. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > > >> >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that > >> >> would > >> >> compel us to treat them similarly. > > >> > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and chickens > >> > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach > >> > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. > > >> That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by "similar". > > > What did you mean, then? > > Protection of their very lives with something like murder laws that we are > protected by. The relevant similarity between humans and chickens is the > ability to feel pain. > Don't chickens have an interest in continuing to live? Isn't that another relevant similarity? > > > >> > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give > >> > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we > >> > treat them similarly to typical humans. > > >> Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar > >> interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and > >> into > >> application. > > > Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which > > clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical situation > > and you've told me you're not interested. > > To hell with "the literature", that's a diversion. Say it in your own words. > I have to some extent. I've been starting by discussing Singer's views, just for the purpose of explaining what they are, not of defending them. You haven't been very willing to listen. It's a complex issue and there are many different positions available which are consistent with equal consideration. If you really want to familiarize yourself with the issues, the best way is to read a bit of the literature. > > > > > > > >> > When you say "There are > >> > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are > >> > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding my > >> > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally > >> > relevant difference. > > >> I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not conceding > >> the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to > >> suggest. > > > No, I'm not suggesting that. I think that your attempted rebuttal of > > the argument from marginal cases (which I'll get around to addressing > > shortly) is still consistent with the basic point that I am making > > here, which is the formal principle of justice, although perhaps not > > with equal consideration. > > Whatever that is supposed to mean. > > > > > > > > >> > There are distinctions between typical humans and > >> > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the > >> > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests with > >> > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a > >> > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with > >> > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly similar > >> > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. > > >> It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the word > >> discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a human > >> and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. Moralstat99.doc > >> makes this point effectively. > > > The point being made is that *no* amount of dissimilarity is any good > > reason for refusing to give equal consideration to relevantly similar > > interests. > > Such as? > The interest in not suffering, and the interest in staying alive (when that is relevantly similar). > > > > > > There is some dispute about the extent to which there are > > dissimilarities between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people. But this > > dispute has no bearing on the issue of whether their interests should > > be given equal consideration. > > >> If > > >> > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent > >> > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some > >> > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of > >> > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, for > >> > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate > >> > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar > >> > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, even > >> > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs > >> > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided > >> > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but > >> > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was > >> > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations are > >> > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. > > >> You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant > >> characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and > >> deprivation. > >> Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those effects > >> in > >> animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do > >> you > >> claim chickens possess? > > > Um, yeah, that's pretty much all I'm saying at this point: we should > > make them suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy our trivial > > interests. That would have fairly radical implications. > > What else could it mean? > Well, it would entail that a lot of modern farming is morally indefensible, for a start. > > > >> >> The only similarity is that morally > >> >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, therefore > >> >> we > >> >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of > >> >> chickens, > >> >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. > > >> I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. > > > I agree, we could just argue "chickens suffer, so we should avoid > > unnecessarily causing them to suffer", but apparently people who run > > battery-cage farms don't find this argument compelling, so we try to > > reinforce it with the argument from equal consideration. > > I don't find that useful. Even as a person sympathetic to the strongest > possible welfare measures, "equal consideration" seems to me like a > collossal misnomer for an ideal. > Well, why? What's wrong with equal consideration? How do you justify less than equal consideration? > > > > > >> >> > Sure you can say, > >> >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian > >> >> > humans > > >> >> Not similar, equal, identical. > > >> >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, > >> >> > inasmuch > >> >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. > > >> >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way relieve > >> >> you > >> >> of > >> >> the burden to show that it is valid. > > >> > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what I > >> > am trying to explain to you. > > >> You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant > >> similarity > >> exists without defining it. > > > There are some relevant similarities and some relevant > > dissimilarities. I can't discern any difference between our views > > about what those are. > > I can, you are focused around the rights notions of AR which are something > else again. Can you elaborate? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 5:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > groups.com... > > >> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> >> [..] > > >> >> >> >> 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. > > >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything in > >> >> your > >> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself the > >> >> moral > >> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal > >> >> deaths, > >> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from others, > >> >> and > >> >> to > >> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified discrimination. > >> >> The > >> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. > > >> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally permissible > >> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On > >> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products > >> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not yet > >> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not > >> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy > >> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. > >> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make a > >> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in > >> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I am > >> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully I > >> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like > >> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions > >> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except that > >> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying factory- > >> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. > > >> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, > >> probably > >> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. You > >> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to > >> others. > > > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating > > animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You > > want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed" > > which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. > > Factory farming of vegetables, grain and fruit: the use of large machines > for cultivating, fertilizing, seeding, spraying, weeding and harvesting, all > which make it impossible for wildlife to be seen or protected from the > effects of those incursions. Davis showed that even one pass of a hay mower > had a devastating impact on the population of field mice. Then there is the > impact of the substances themselves, not the least of which, but one not > often mentioned is chemical nitrogen which destroys the biodiversity of the > soil that supports a rich community of organic life. Factory farming of > vegetables is far more deadly than factory farming of animals. > Nonsense. Factory farming requires more crop inputs per serving of food, so it's much more deadly. It also involves much more cruel treatment. > > I simply made the > > statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy > > factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally > > impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any > > indication why this is an unreasonable stance. > > It's only morally impermissible in the shadow of your own intolerance. What intolerance, exactly? You yourself are intolerant of some things. Why does this raise problems for me but not for you? > I > realize that your self-image is caught up in the notion that you have risen > above the killing habits of other men, but I've get news for you. > > > > >> > There are no more > >> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you > > >> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance > >> respondents. > > > You took it upon yourself > > That's right, get over it, your whining is more tiresome than your > hypocrisy. If you're going to maintain that I'm a hypocrite and you're not, without bothering to defend that contention, when I've explained why it can't be defended, then you're a tiresome stupid presumptuous little twit who isn't worth my time. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 30, 4:10 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > So, you think I know that nonhuman animals are not morally entitled to > > equal consideration. How exactly do I know this? Is it just a self- > > evident axiom? > > It's not self-evident, you learned it. Like a dope you're trying to unlearn > it, but you're not convincing anyone except other dopes. > Fascinating. How did I learn it? How did I know it to be the case? > > What do you say to someone who finds it a self-evident > > axiom that black people are not entitled to equal consideration? > > I'd say to them that they need to learn, equality of the races was a > milestone in the history of human morality, And you think that that without any further argument should convince them? What's the relevant difference to the case for giving equal consideration to animals? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Following Dutch's reply to this ranting-and-raving post > of rupie's, I had to go back and revisit it. > > Rupert wrote: > > On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to > >>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of > >>> proof to meet? > >> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people > >> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal > >> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, > >> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that > >> you wish others to accept. > > > Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. > > No, it isn't. You *plainly* didn't understand what I > wrote. > On the contrary, you plainly don't understand how burden of proof arguments work. > > You can't say the burden of > > proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. > > Nor *did* I say that, rupie. Re-read it. > > > Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining > > that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were > > not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to > > meet. > > No, I never maintained that. Just how far up your > rectum did you have to reach to find that little > nugget, rupie? It's shit. I never said anything like > that. We never, at any point, were talking about what > those who supported unequal consideration for Negroes > (it's a proper noun, you idiot) said, because in their > society, it was just assumed; they didn't go around > making any assertions about it. > Well, you *are* making assertions that animals are not entitled to equal consideration, repeatedly. So presumably it's your job to justify them. When you say the burden of proof is on me, I understand that to mean you are denying that you have any obligation to support your assertion. This is not consistent with what you are saying here. > But suppose that a southerner who supported slavery, or > at least some form of unequal treatment for Negroes, > had gone to the north for a visit. And suppose further > that the place he visited had recognized, in a basic > sense, complete political and legal and moral equality > among different races and ethnicities - so much so that > no one who accepted that equality ever thought it > necessary to state the case for it, because it was just > reality. Now suppose this southerner is astonished at > this, and wants to tell the northerners that they've > got it all wrong, that Negroes do not deserve equal > moral (and thus political and legal) consideration. > Where does the burden of proof now lay, rupie? It > plainly lays with the southerner, who is the one making > an assertion. > Very interesting. How does he meet it? And how do you meet your burden of proof that animals are not entitled to equal consideration? Are you saying the burden of proof is always on the one who's in the minority, is that it? That's simply not true. Atheists are in a minority in the US, but the burden of proof is still on the theist. > > It was their opponents' job to refute them. > > It was the opponents' - the abolitionists' - job to > support their assertion that Negroes were entitled to > equal consideration, and they met it. How? > You can't meet > your similar burden. > > > If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet, > > They didn't have any burden of proof because they > weren't making any assertions at all, rupie. They were > simply going about life as they had always known it. > Jolly good. But people who explicitly defend the status quo regarding animals, such as yourself, are making positive assertions and so presumably do have a burden of proof to meet. > > then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't > > get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what > > you're claiming. > > No, rupie, it would not have been. Those asserting the > moral equality of Negroes would have had the burden. > *Anyone* making such an assertion, regardless of the > direction of the assertion, always has the burden of proof. > > > So make up your mind. > > It already was, and is. > So you're saying you can escape the burden of proof just by not saying anything. Well, that's a very neat trick, but the trouble is it's not what you've been doing. You've constantly been making positive assertions. So you have a burden of proof to meet. > > Where does the burden of proof > > lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those > > who deny it? > > It lies with whomever is making an assertion trying to > persuade someone else of some position contrary to the > one the listener holds _ex ante_. If it's a > segregationist trying to persuade an > equal-consideration adherent that consideration > shouldn't be equal, then the burden is on the > segregationist. If the roles are reversed, then the > burden is on the equal-consideration proponent. The > burden is always on the person making an assertion > intended to persuade. > Great. So convince me that your view of the moral status of animals is the correct one. > > It can't be on both. > > I never said it was, rupie. You misread in order to > think I did. I said it could be *either*, depending on > who was talking to whom. > So, if it's not a legitimate move to ask someone to justify a pattern of discrimination, then can you give me just one historical example of a valid argument for ending discrimination? > > It must be on one or the other, and > > you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal > > consideration. > > And I'm correct, given the context. > > The problem for you in this, rupie, is that you are so > incoherently convinced of the *intrinsic* rightness of > what you believe, that you want to consider it > axiomatic. This is a very surprising position for > someone allegedly with a Ph.D. in mathematics. In > math, there are theorems that *become* axioms, but they > don't start out that way. Once a theorem is proved, it > may be subsequently taken as axiomatic in the > elaboration and proof of other theorems, but only > because the truth of the axiom was already proved, > rather than simply assumed out of thin air. > You obviously don't know much about mathematical logic. A theorem doesn't become an axiom. What you're talking about is the Cut rule, whereby we may introduce a previously proved theorem into a proof as though it were an axiom. This rule is a correct derived rule for a lot of systems of logic, including first-order logic. I'm not taking my position as axiomatic. Moral reasoning isn't like mathematical reasoning. What I'm doing is appealling to the formal principle of justice. I'm saying, judging two cases differently requires pointing out a morally relevant distinction. You're saying this is not valid, even when challenging a pattern of arbitrary discrimination the burden of proof is still on the challenger, and asking for a justification for the pattern of discrimination is not a legitimate move. I maintain that, if this were the case, there would have been no valid argument for ending discrimination based on race or sex. You have given me no reason to think otherwise. > You *want* the proposition that animals deserve equal > moral consideration to be considered axiomatic, rupie, > but it is not. That's why there's still so much debate > on it. Your desire is motivated by > > a) your irrationally passionate gut-level, not > intellectual, attachment to animals ("Bambi" > syndrome) > > b) your basic philosophical laziness and inability > > You don't *want* to have to prove the propostion, > because you're a lazy, narcissistic **** who likes the > easy life on your imaginary moral pedestal. You like > thinking of yourself as morally superior merely because > of having declared yourself free of cruelty to animals. > Your position is bullshit. I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone who wants to deny equal consideration. Others, such as David DeGrazia, have written at greater length about this issue. You're offering an alternative view (without argument), but you're not adequately explaining how your view can account for past moral progress. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 6:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> The burden of proof is on you to support your > >> assertion, > > > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? > > Because every assertion carries a burden of proof, especially if it > challenges conventional wisdom. A pattern of discrimination, even if it is part of conventional wisdom, carries a burden of proof. > You don't assert that a dog is no different > from a dandelion then demand that unless we disprove it to your satisfaction > that it must be true. Why not? > In this instance, you yourself have acknowledged that > there are many major fundamental differences between humans and chickens. > Now you say that those differences are not "morally relevant", No, I'm not. > but according > to every commonly understood measure of criteria they are. > > >> and you can't meet it. > > > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > > they'd actually had to meet it. You convince me otherwise. > > They did meet it, they convinced us that humanity was the morally relevant > factor to be granted rights, Well, they didn't convince me. What was their argument? > and argued successfully that negros had it. At > least that is the essence of the debate in retrospect if not how it actually > played out. > Elaborate. What do you mean by "humanity", anyway? > >> You'll never meet > > > > >> it, and that's a big part of why "ar" is dead in the water.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 29, 6:17 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > [..] > > >> > We've made a good case. > > >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > > > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. You've > > got to specify a morally relevant difference which justifies the > > discrimination. It's called the formal principle of justice. You > > haven't shown why we should reject it. Nor have you shown that widely > > held views about human equality can be defended without recourse to > > the formal principle of justice. > > The basis for discrimination is sentience, A lot of nonhuman animals are sentient as well. > the very same basis that you use > to justify why it's acceptable to slaughter bugs. The argument from marginal > cases fails because marginal humans still possess some human quality that we > value, some possibility of a rich inner life, even though they may appear > severely impaired to normal people. As Wetlesen puts it, they are moral > persons even if they lack the capability to be moral actors. Well, I suppose I should have a look at this article, but I find this a singularly unconvincing line of argument. I don't think that impaired humans have a "possibility" of a rich inner life in a sense that nonhumans don't. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that >> >> >> would >> >> >> compel us to treat them similarly. >> >> >> > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and >> >> > chickens >> >> > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach >> >> > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. >> >> >> That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by >> >> "similar". >> >> > What did you mean, then? >> >> Protection of their very lives with something like murder laws that we >> are >> protected by. The relevant similarity between humans and chickens is the >> ability to feel pain. >> > > Don't chickens have an interest in continuing to live? Isn't that > another relevant similarity? No similarity there at all, chickens have no "interest in continuing to live" in the sense that humans do. Chickens, as with most animals, simply live from moment to moment, responding to whatever stimuli happen to be occuring at the time. Humans on the other hand have a conscious awareness and interest in continuing to live for a particular period of time, they grasp the notion of dying, and no longer existing, for eternity. In this respect chickens may as well be dandelions. >> >> > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give >> >> > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we >> >> > treat them similarly to typical humans. >> >> >> Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar >> >> interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and >> >> into >> >> application. >> >> > Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which >> > clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical situation >> > and you've told me you're not interested. >> >> To hell with "the literature", that's a diversion. Say it in your own >> words. >> > > I have to some extent. I've been starting by discussing Singer's > views, just for the purpose of explaining what they are, not of > defending them. You haven't been very willing to listen. It's a > complex issue and there are many different positions available which > are consistent with equal consideration. If you really want to > familiarize yourself with the issues, the best way is to read a bit of > the literature. That was just a way of saying that you're incapable of expressing an idea without making yourself look dumb. It didn't work, I see through it. It makes you look inarticulate. >> >> > When you say "There are >> >> > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are >> >> > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding >> >> > my >> >> > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally >> >> > relevant difference. >> >> >> I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not >> >> conceding >> >> the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to >> >> suggest. >> >> > No, I'm not suggesting that. I think that your attempted rebuttal of >> > the argument from marginal cases (which I'll get around to addressing >> > shortly) is still consistent with the basic point that I am making >> > here, which is the formal principle of justice, although perhaps not >> > with equal consideration. >> >> Whatever that is supposed to mean. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are distinctions between typical humans and >> >> > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the >> >> > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests >> >> > with >> >> > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a >> >> > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with >> >> > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly >> >> > similar >> >> > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. >> >> >> It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the >> >> word >> >> discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a >> >> human >> >> and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. >> >> Moralstat99.doc >> >> makes this point effectively. >> >> > The point being made is that *no* amount of dissimilarity is any good >> > reason for refusing to give equal consideration to relevantly similar >> > interests. >> >> Such as? >> > > The interest in not suffering, and the interest in staying alive (when > that is relevantly similar). Not remotely similar due to the difference in sentience. >> > There is some dispute about the extent to which there are >> > dissimilarities between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people. But this >> > dispute has no bearing on the issue of whether their interests should >> > be given equal consideration. >> >> >> If >> >> >> > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent >> >> > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some >> >> > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of >> >> > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, >> >> > for >> >> > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate >> >> > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar >> >> > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, >> >> > even >> >> > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs >> >> > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided >> >> > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but >> >> > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was >> >> > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations >> >> > are >> >> > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. >> >> >> You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant >> >> characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and >> >> deprivation. >> >> Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those >> >> effects >> >> in >> >> animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do >> >> you >> >> claim chickens possess? >> >> > Um, yeah, that's pretty much all I'm saying at this point: we should >> > make them suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy our trivial >> > interests. That would have fairly radical implications. >> >> What else could it mean? >> > > Well, it would entail that a lot of modern farming is morally > indefensible, for a start. Ought we not begin with the premise that human race gets to continue? >> >> >> The only similarity is that morally >> >> >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, >> >> >> therefore >> >> >> we >> >> >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of >> >> >> chickens, >> >> >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. >> >> >> I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. >> >> > I agree, we could just argue "chickens suffer, so we should avoid >> > unnecessarily causing them to suffer", but apparently people who run >> > battery-cage farms don't find this argument compelling, so we try to >> > reinforce it with the argument from equal consideration. >> >> I don't find that useful. Even as a person sympathetic to the strongest >> possible welfare measures, "equal consideration" seems to me like a >> collossal misnomer for an ideal. >> > > Well, why? What's wrong with equal consideration? It's completely untenable. It doesn't begin to accurately describe what ANY moral ideal attempts to do, much less reality. > How do you justify > less than equal consideration? By the need to live within a ecosystem crammed with other living organisms, and by a vast gap in sentience between humans and other organisms. How can you justify *suggesting* "equal consideration"? The phrase should be jettisoned out-of-hand. >> >> >> > Sure you can say, >> >> >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian >> >> >> > humans >> >> >> >> Not similar, equal, identical. >> >> >> >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, >> >> >> > inasmuch >> >> >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. >> >> >> >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way >> >> >> relieve >> >> >> you >> >> >> of >> >> >> the burden to show that it is valid. >> >> >> > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what >> >> > I >> >> > am trying to explain to you. >> >> >> You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant >> >> similarity >> >> exists without defining it. >> >> > There are some relevant similarities and some relevant >> > dissimilarities. I can't discern any difference between our views >> > about what those are. >> >> I can, you are focused around the rights notions of AR which are >> something >> else again. > > Can you elaborate? Not right now. It should be obvious anyway. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 2, 1:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > On Jun 29, 2:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> [..] > > >> >> >> There is no plausible similarity between chickens and humans that > >> >> >> would > >> >> >> compel us to treat them similarly. > > >> >> > You're missing the point. I am not advocating that humans and > >> >> > chickens > >> >> > be treated similarly - I am not advocating that we try to teach > >> >> > chickens mathematics, for example, or give them the right to vote. > > >> >> That's a strawman, I never suggested that is what was meant by > >> >> "similar". > > >> > What did you mean, then? > > >> Protection of their very lives with something like murder laws that we > >> are > >> protected by. The relevant similarity between humans and chickens is the > >> ability to feel pain. > > > Don't chickens have an interest in continuing to live? Isn't that > > another relevant similarity? > > No similarity there at all, chickens have no "interest in continuing to > live" in the sense that humans do. Chickens, as with most animals, simply > live from moment to moment, responding to whatever stimuli happen to be > occuring at the time. Humans on the other hand have a conscious awareness > and interest in continuing to live for a particular period of time, they > grasp the notion of dying, and no longer existing, for eternity. In this > respect chickens may as well be dandelions. > Some people do draw a distinction between a human's interest in continuing to live and a chicken's interest in continuing to live, such as Peter Singer. However, there is some degree of similarity, and it is not true that a chicken is relevantly like a dandelion. A chicken benefits from being allowed to continue to live. In this respect they are like us. There's no justification for terminating a chicken's life just to satisfy some trivial desire of our own. > > > > > >> >> > Equal consideration of their interests with that which we would give > >> >> > the relevantly similar interests of a human does not entail that we > >> >> > treat them similarly to typical humans. > > >> >> Say what it *is*, not what it is *not*. Define "relevantly similar > >> >> interests" as it applies to humans and chickens. Get beyond theory and > >> >> into > >> >> application. > > >> > Well, I've referred you to a few places in the literature which > >> > clarify how equal consideration applies in various practical situation > >> > and you've told me you're not interested. > > >> To hell with "the literature", that's a diversion. Say it in your own > >> words. > > > I have to some extent. I've been starting by discussing Singer's > > views, just for the purpose of explaining what they are, not of > > defending them. You haven't been very willing to listen. It's a > > complex issue and there are many different positions available which > > are consistent with equal consideration. If you really want to > > familiarize yourself with the issues, the best way is to read a bit of > > the literature. > > That was just a way of saying that you're incapable of expressing an idea > without making yourself look dumb. > > It didn't work, I see through it. It makes you look inarticulate. > No, you're wrong. I haven't been making myself look dumb at all. I've been patiently trying to educate you and so far you've proved ineducable. > > > > > >> >> > When you say "There are > >> >> > distinctions between typical humans and chickens, therefore we are > >> >> > justified in treating them differently" you're basically conceding > >> >> > my > >> >> > point: discrimination requires justification by means of a morally > >> >> > relevant difference. > > >> >> I never argued that we should act indiscriminately, and I'm not > >> >> conceding > >> >> the argument from marginal cases, if that is what you are trying to > >> >> suggest. > > >> > No, I'm not suggesting that. I think that your attempted rebuttal of > >> > the argument from marginal cases (which I'll get around to addressing > >> > shortly) is still consistent with the basic point that I am making > >> > here, which is the formal principle of justice, although perhaps not > >> > with equal consideration. > > >> Whatever that is supposed to mean. > > >> >> > There are distinctions between typical humans and > >> >> > chickens which do justify us in treating them differently, but the > >> >> > point that we should give equal consideration to their interests > >> >> > with > >> >> > that which we would give to the relevantly similar interests of a > >> >> > human remains, and in *this* respect the situation is analogous with > >> >> > the requirement to give equal consideration to the relevantly > >> >> > similar > >> >> > interests of people with fair skin and people with dark skin. > > >> >> It's only analagous in the most extreme broad understanding of the > >> >> word > >> >> discrimination. In real terms there is as much similarity between a > >> >> human > >> >> and a chicken as there is between a chicken and a beetle. > >> >> Moralstat99.doc > >> >> makes this point effectively. > > >> > The point being made is that *no* amount of dissimilarity is any good > >> > reason for refusing to give equal consideration to relevantly similar > >> > interests. > > >> Such as? > > > The interest in not suffering, and the interest in staying alive (when > > that is relevantly similar). > > Not remotely similar due to the difference in sentience. > In that case we should say the same about certain humans, such as newborn infants. It's a complex issue, but in many cases there is some degree of similarity. > > > > > >> > There is some dispute about the extent to which there are > >> > dissimilarities between fair-skinned and dark-skinned people. But this > >> > dispute has no bearing on the issue of whether their interests should > >> > be given equal consideration. > > >> >> If > > >> >> > people with dark skin were on average significantly less intelligent > >> >> > than us, as used to be widely believed, that would entail some > >> >> > differences in how we treat them - there would be certain forms of > >> >> > advanced education which would be appropriate for them less often, > >> >> > for > >> >> > example, and certain forms of employment which would be appropriate > >> >> > for them less often. The general point that their relevantly similar > >> >> > interests should be given equal consideration would still remain, > >> >> > even > >> >> > if this claim were correct. Getting people to change their beliefs > >> >> > that people with dark skin were less intelligent no doubt provided > >> >> > some welcome help to the cause of getting them better treatment, but > >> >> > strictly speaking the case for giving them equal consideration was > >> >> > unaffected by this factual issue. In this respect, the situations > >> >> > are > >> >> > analogous. You have not undermined this analogy. > > >> >> You have failed to connect the dots. The only morally relevant > >> >> characteristic of a chicken is its ability to suffer pain and > >> >> deprivation. > >> >> Accordingly, we are obliged to take measures to alleviate those > >> >> effects > >> >> in > >> >> animals in our care. Which other "morally relevant characteristics" do > >> >> you > >> >> claim chickens possess? > > >> > Um, yeah, that's pretty much all I'm saying at this point: we should > >> > make them suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy our trivial > >> > interests. That would have fairly radical implications. > > >> What else could it mean? > > > Well, it would entail that a lot of modern farming is morally > > indefensible, for a start. > > Ought we not begin with the premise that human race gets to continue? > Well, you can if you want, I don't see how that would affect the above point. > > > > > >> >> >> The only similarity is that morally > >> >> >> significant is that chickens can also experience suffering, > >> >> >> therefore > >> >> >> we > >> >> >> ought to alleviate that suffering. But that is a characteristic of > >> >> >> chickens, > >> >> >> the relation to human sensitivity to pain is really immaterial. > > >> >> I see that I already made this point, but you missed it. > > >> > I agree, we could just argue "chickens suffer, so we should avoid > >> > unnecessarily causing them to suffer", but apparently people who run > >> > battery-cage farms don't find this argument compelling, so we try to > >> > reinforce it with the argument from equal consideration. > > >> I don't find that useful. Even as a person sympathetic to the strongest > >> possible welfare measures, "equal consideration" seems to me like a > >> collossal misnomer for an ideal. > > > Well, why? What's wrong with equal consideration? > > It's completely untenable. It doesn't begin to accurately describe what ANY > moral ideal attempts to do, much less reality. > Well, you think so. But you've given no evidence for this point of view, and no evidence that you really understand what equal consideration means. > > How do you justify > > less than equal consideration? > > By the need to live within a ecosystem crammed with other living organisms, > and by a vast gap in sentience between humans and other organisms. > Differences in cognitive complexity don't affect the basic issue of equal consideration. I see no evidence that the need to live in an ecosystem affects the case for equal consideration. > How can you justify *suggesting* "equal consideration"? The phrase should > be jettisoned out-of-hand. > You still don't understand what it means. > > > > > >> >> >> > Sure you can say, > >> >> >> > negroes have similar cognitive capacities to typical Caucasian > >> >> >> > humans > > >> >> >> Not similar, equal, identical. > > >> >> >> > and chickens don't, but that's basically conceding my point, > >> >> >> > inasmuch > >> >> >> > as you're making an effort to meet the burden of proof. > > >> >> >> My attempts to explain why your analogy is invalid in no way > >> >> >> relieve > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> the burden to show that it is valid. > > >> >> > Your attempts to undermine the analogy miss the point, that is what > >> >> > I > >> >> > am trying to explain to you. > > >> >> You are not making a valid point. You are asserting that relevant > >> >> similarity > >> >> exists without defining it. > > >> > There are some relevant similarities and some relevant > >> > dissimilarities. I can't discern any difference between our views > >> > about what those are. > > >> I can, you are focused around the rights notions of AR which are > >> something > >> else again. > > > Can you elaborate? > > Not right now. It should be obvious anyway.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 29, 5:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> groups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything >> >> >> in >> >> >> your >> >> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself >> >> >> the >> >> >> moral >> >> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal >> >> >> deaths, >> >> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from >> >> >> others, >> >> >> and >> >> >> to >> >> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified >> >> >> discrimination. >> >> >> The >> >> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. >> >> >> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally >> >> > permissible >> >> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On >> >> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products >> >> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not >> >> > yet >> >> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not >> >> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy >> >> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. >> >> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make >> >> > a >> >> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in >> >> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I >> >> > am >> >> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully >> >> > I >> >> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like >> >> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions >> >> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except >> >> > that >> >> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying >> >> > factory- >> >> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. >> >> >> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, >> >> probably >> >> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. >> >> You >> >> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to >> >> others. >> >> > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating >> > animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You >> > want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed" >> > which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. >> >> Factory farming of vegetables, grain and fruit: the use of large machines >> for cultivating, fertilizing, seeding, spraying, weeding and harvesting, >> all >> which make it impossible for wildlife to be seen or protected from the >> effects of those incursions. Davis showed that even one pass of a hay >> mower >> had a devastating impact on the population of field mice. Then there is >> the >> impact of the substances themselves, not the least of which, but one not >> often mentioned is chemical nitrogen which destroys the biodiversity of >> the >> soil that supports a rich community of organic life. Factory farming of >> vegetables is far more deadly than factory farming of animals. >> > > Nonsense. Factory farming requires more crop inputs per serving of > food, so it's much more deadly. It also involves much more cruel > treatment. Like every good little ARA, when it starts to look bad for you you just move the goalposts. >> > I simply made the >> > statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy >> > factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally >> > impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any >> > indication why this is an unreasonable stance. >> >> It's only morally impermissible in the shadow of your own intolerance. > > What intolerance, exactly? Your intolerance. > You yourself are intolerant of some things. Yes, so what? > Why does this raise problems for me but not for you? My intolerance is reasonable, yours is not. > >> I >> realize that your self-image is caught up in the notion that you have >> risen >> above the killing habits of other men, but I've get news for you. >> >> >> >> >> > There are no more >> >> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you >> >> >> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance >> >> respondents. >> >> > You took it upon yourself >> >> That's right, get over it, your whining is more tiresome than your >> hypocrisy. > > If you're going to maintain that I'm a hypocrite and you're not, > without bothering to defend that contention, when I've explained why > it can't be defended, then you're a tiresome stupid presumptuous > little twit who isn't worth my time. I've told you why, you don't listen. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 2, 4:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 5:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > roups.com... > > >> > On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > >> groups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> >> >> [..] > > >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > >> >> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> moral > >> >> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal > >> >> >> deaths, > >> >> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from > >> >> >> others, > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified > >> >> >> discrimination. > >> >> >> The > >> >> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. > > >> >> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally > >> >> > permissible > >> >> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On > >> >> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products > >> >> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not > >> >> > yet > >> >> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not > >> >> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy > >> >> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying. > >> >> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make > >> >> > a > >> >> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in > >> >> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I > >> >> > am > >> >> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully > >> >> > I > >> >> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like > >> >> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions > >> >> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except > >> >> > that > >> >> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying > >> >> > factory- > >> >> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that. > > >> >> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, > >> >> probably > >> >> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. > >> >> You > >> >> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to > >> >> others. > > >> > To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating > >> > animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You > >> > want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed" > >> > which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. > > >> Factory farming of vegetables, grain and fruit: the use of large machines > >> for cultivating, fertilizing, seeding, spraying, weeding and harvesting, > >> all > >> which make it impossible for wildlife to be seen or protected from the > >> effects of those incursions. Davis showed that even one pass of a hay > >> mower > >> had a devastating impact on the population of field mice. Then there is > >> the > >> impact of the substances themselves, not the least of which, but one not > >> often mentioned is chemical nitrogen which destroys the biodiversity of > >> the > >> soil that supports a rich community of organic life. Factory farming of > >> vegetables is far more deadly than factory farming of animals. > > > Nonsense. Factory farming requires more crop inputs per serving of > > food, so it's much more deadly. It also involves much more cruel > > treatment. > > Like every good little ARA, when it starts to look bad for you you just move > the goalposts. > Er, no, I don't think so. I'm still talking about the same thing as I always was. > >> > I simply made the > >> > statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy > >> > factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally > >> > impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any > >> > indication why this is an unreasonable stance. > > >> It's only morally impermissible in the shadow of your own intolerance. > > > What intolerance, exactly? > > Your intolerance. > Of what? > > You yourself are intolerant of some things. > > Yes, so what? > Well, why is my intolerance so bad if yours is okay? > > Why does this raise problems for me but not for you? > > My intolerance is reasonable, yours is not. > Argue the point. > > > > > > > >> I > >> realize that your self-image is caught up in the notion that you have > >> risen > >> above the killing habits of other men, but I've get news for you. > > >> >> > There are no more > >> >> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you > > >> >> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance > >> >> respondents. > > >> > You took it upon yourself > > >> That's right, get over it, your whining is more tiresome than your > >> hypocrisy. > > > If you're going to maintain that I'm a hypocrite and you're not, > > without bothering to defend that contention, when I've explained why > > it can't be defended, then you're a tiresome stupid presumptuous > > little twit who isn't worth my time. > > I've told you why, you don't listen. You haven't given an answer to my most recent rebuttal. You've never said anything which addresses it. You've got no basis for saying I'm hypocritical and you're not. I've explained this obvious point time and time again, you've never given any good grounds for doubting it. The last time I said this all you had to say was "I don't care, get over it". If you maintain that I'm wrong, make some effort to argue the point. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 30, 4:10 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > So, you think I know that nonhuman animals are not morally entitled to >> > equal consideration. How exactly do I know this? Is it just a self- >> > evident axiom? >> >> It's not self-evident, you learned it. Like a dope you're trying to >> unlearn >> it, but you're not convincing anyone except other dopes. >> > > Fascinating. How did I learn it? How did I know it to be the case? You learned it from your parents, teachers, peers, from reading about history, by absorbing the moral lessons in the culture and society around you. >> > What do you say to someone who finds it a self-evident >> > axiom that black people are not entitled to equal consideration? >> >> I'd say to them that they need to learn, equality of the races was a >> milestone in the history of human morality, > > And you think that that without any further argument should convince > them? No, because anyone who thinks that way is likely dogmatic about their ideas. They would probably simply need to be told the way it is, just like you. >What's the relevant difference to the case for giving equal > consideration to animals? Sentience, humanity. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Your position is bullshit. > > I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone > who wants to deny equal consideration. Rubbish, you deny equal consideration based on sentience. When asked to support your actions you become evasive. Everyone denys equal consideration based on sentience, we just don't all deny it the same way. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 2, 4:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > On Jun 30, 4:10 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > So, you think I know that nonhuman animals are not morally entitled to > >> > equal consideration. How exactly do I know this? Is it just a self- > >> > evident axiom? > > >> It's not self-evident, you learned it. Like a dope you're trying to > >> unlearn > >> it, but you're not convincing anyone except other dopes. > > > Fascinating. How did I learn it? How did I know it to be the case? > > You learned it from your parents, teachers, peers, from reading about > history, by absorbing the moral lessons in the culture and society around > you. > What are the *rational* grounds for believing it, as opposed to just "It's what everyone thinks these days"? > >> > What do you say to someone who finds it a self-evident > >> > axiom that black people are not entitled to equal consideration? > > >> I'd say to them that they need to learn, equality of the races was a > >> milestone in the history of human morality, > > > And you think that that without any further argument should convince > > them? > > No, because anyone who thinks that way is likely dogmatic about their ideas. > They would probably simply need to be told the way it is, just like you. > What are the *reasons* why they should accept your view? And what are the *reasons* why your views about animals are better than mine (however, exactly, they differ)? > >What's the relevant difference to the case for giving equal > > consideration to animals? > > Sentience, humanity. Those are two utterly different things, and your concept of "humanity" is poorly defined. This is a totally inadequate answer. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 2, 4:42 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Your position is bullshit. > > > I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone > > who wants to deny equal consideration. > > Rubbish, you deny equal consideration based on sentience. When asked to > support your actions you become evasive. Everyone denys equal consideration > based on sentience, we just don't all deny it the same way. Saying that difference between the sorts of interests beings have may justify different treatment is not inconsistent with equal consideration. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 29, 6:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> The burden of proof is on you to support your >> >> assertion, >> >> > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? >> >> Because every assertion carries a burden of proof, especially if it >> challenges conventional wisdom. > > A pattern of discrimination, even if it is part of conventional > wisdom, carries a burden of proof. No it doesn't, discrimination is what allows organisms to survive, and you're misusing the term proof. Pretty sloppy for a mathematician. >> You don't assert that a dog is no different >> from a dandelion then demand that unless we disprove it to your >> satisfaction >> that it must be true. > > Why not? Because that is not how rational debate works. We operate on a set of reasonable assumptions which allow us to communicate ideas. It is a reasonable assumption that a dog is different from a dandelion. If you want to start a discussion based on the premise that they are not different then it is reasonable that you should support that premise. Certainly you *can* simply assert they you believe they are the same, and you *can* then demand that others prove you wrong, but you should not expect anyone to indulge your laziness. >> In this instance, you yourself have acknowledged that >> there are many major fundamental differences between humans and chickens. >> Now you say that those differences are not "morally relevant", > > No, I'm not. Then what are you saying, in English? > >> but according >> to every commonly understood measure of criteria they are. >> >> >> and you can't meet it. >> >> > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if >> > they'd actually had to meet it. You convince me otherwise. >> >> They did meet it, they convinced us that humanity was the morally >> relevant >> factor to be granted rights, > > Well, they didn't convince me. They didn't convince a lot of people, but they convinced most. > What was their argument? Did you read moralstat99? >> and argued successfully that negros had it. At >> least that is the essence of the debate in retrospect if not how it >> actually >> played out. >> > > Elaborate. What do you mean by "humanity", anyway? The sum of everything that makes you a "person", based mainly on an extraordinarily highly developed brain. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jun 29, 6:17 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> > We've made a good case. >> >> >> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >> >> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >> >> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >> >> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. >> >> > The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. You've >> > got to specify a morally relevant difference which justifies the >> > discrimination. It's called the formal principle of justice. You >> > haven't shown why we should reject it. Nor have you shown that widely >> > held views about human equality can be defended without recourse to >> > the formal principle of justice. >> >> The basis for discrimination is sentience, > > A lot of nonhuman animals are sentient as well. Every living organism is sentient to some extent, it's matter of degree. Wetlesen's explanation explains how I think as well as how you act, i.e. towards animals which you dismiss as "non-sentient". >> the very same basis that you use >> to justify why it's acceptable to slaughter bugs. The argument from >> marginal >> cases fails because marginal humans still possess some human quality that >> we >> value, some possibility of a rich inner life, even though they may appear >> severely impaired to normal people. As Wetlesen puts it, they are moral >> persons even if they lack the capability to be moral actors. > > Well, I suppose I should have a look at this article, but I find this > a singularly unconvincing line of argument. Without reading the article. I don't think that > impaired humans have a "possibility" of a rich inner life in a sense > that nonhumans don't. Why not? Animals cannot have such an inner life if one has never exhibited such capacity outwardly. As long as a human displays brain activity there is a possibility that they are engaged in vivid human dreams about life. And what is wrong with valuing some humans merely for sentimental reasons? We do it for many animals as well. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" | General Cooking | |||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + | General Cooking | |||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan |