"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 3, 8:21 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> groups.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,
>>
>> > This doesn't affect my point. A difference in judgement of two types
>> > of cases requires a justification.
>>
>> Only if you can show a relevant similarity.
>>
>
> No, the burden is on those who would assert a relevant difference.

So you're admitting that you can't show a relevant similarity.

>> >> and
>> >> you're misusing the term proof.
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >> Pretty sloppy for a mathematician.
>>
>> > I don't know what being a mathematician has got to do with it,
>> > obviously we're not talking about mathematical proof here.
>>
>> In any case the word "proof" is being misapplied, discrimination never
>> requires "proof". It may entail an explanation, not proof.
>>
>
> Drawing a moral distinction requires a justification.

It entials an explanation and that explanation has been provided.

> >> >> 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.
>>
>> > There's no difficulty in demonstrating that a dog is different to a
>> > dandelion.
>>
>> There's no difficulty in demonstrating that a dog is different to a
>> human.
>>
>
> Sure, but which differences are relevant will depend on the context.

Be more specific, you're just talking in vague generalities.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > However, in some contexts it would be reasonable to ask
>> > *which* difference is relevant in the context. That's a reasonable
>> > question to ask. And we may or may not wish to challenge the relevance
>> > of the difference which is given in response.
>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> > I'm saying that there are a lot of morally relevant differences
>> > between humans and chickens, but also a lot of morally relevant
>> > similarities.
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>
> The capacity to fare well or ill, the capacity to suffer, the capacity
> to benefit from continued existence.

The same goes for the vole, the lizard, the rat, the sparrow, our ability to
continue to exist, and thrive, entails a depreciation of the lives of some
animals. We both accept that. Your argument does not prohibit me from
accepting that animals suffer and die to provide me with the life I want.
You are attempting to tailor the argument so it impinges on my freedom to
choose but not on yours. I will never let you get away with that.


>> >> >> 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?
>>
>> > Not yet, no. I'll try and get round to it.
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> > Too vague.
>>
>> It's not vague, it's all-encompassing. You are perfectly capable of
>> filling
>> in the blanks.
>
> I might fill the blanks in all sorts of different ways which would
> have different results. If I decided that being able to do research in
> advanced mathematics was an essential part of what made me a "person",
> then you would not count as a "person".

That's a good point, but I have the innate ability to do advanced
mathematics, I just have not developed it. I may have developed a talent in
the arts or communication that expresses my humanness in an equivalent way.

On Jun 19, 1:29 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of overall
> >> >> >> > preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all future
> >> >> >> > time,
> >> >> >> > of the actions available to us.
>
> >> >> >> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> another
> >> >> >> sentient being, like a chicken?
>
> >> >> > Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
>
> >> >> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it is
> >> >> not
> >> >> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time. My
> >> >> interest
> >> >> in consuming chicken wins.
>
> >> > Well, Peter Singer would not be in unqualified agreement with you. He
> >> > has a discussion of this in Chapter 5 of "Practical Ethics". Please
> >> > don't whinge about my referring to books. We are discussing Peter
> >> > Singer's views here, not my own. If you want to understand what those
> >> > views are, you should read what he wrote.
>
> >> I don't, I asked YOU.
>
> > I don't think you're justified in killing a chicken just because you
> > feel hungry, when other nutritious food is available.
>
> I have some questions about that..
>
> Why should I not choose the chicken if that is what satisfies me? Nobody,
> including you, is choosing the path of least harm.
>

We're not talking about my views here, we're talking about Peter
Singer's. I have discussed the issue of collateral deaths with him by
email and he replied "I'm a consequentialist, so I think you should
minimize harm - but if the costs of avoiding a harm become too high
(including opportunity costs which prevent you from doing other good
things) - then you are justified in causing the harm." He means that
growing all your own food would entail sacrificing opportunities to
alleviate suffering in other ways, such as donating money to charity
or engaging in political activism.

I did not start this discussion of preference utilitarianism for the
purposes of defending it or suggesting that anyone fully puts it into
practice. My intention was to explain to you what the theory says, and
hopefully then go on to discuss other ethical frameworks, in order to
illustrate the concept of equal consideration.

Preference utilitarianism is one theory that is consistent with equal
consideration, there are many others. There may be good criticisms of
preference utilitarianism, such as that it ignores constraints or is
unrealistically demanding. It is a contentious issue whether an
adequate moral theory must not be unrealistically demanding.

> How is your particular compromise between animal suffering and personal
> convenience imposable onto me?
>

That's a different issue. I have never made any comment about your
lifestyle. I have some views regarding the limits as to what is
morally acceptable, as do you. I don't spend much time trying to
change the minds of people who disagree with me. I do make some
efforts to encourage people to change their consumption habits for the
better and I also publicly defend my views when they come under
attack.

> How do you even know that the calories I would substitute for the chicken
> would equate to less animal harm than the chicken?
>

There might be reasonable debate about that, perhaps.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > A theory is consistent with equal
> >> >> >> > consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve moral
> >> >> >> > decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar interests
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> > sentient beings, regardless of species.
>
> >> >> >> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the chicken?
>
> >> >> > It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
>
> >> >> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are used in
> >> >> the
> >> >> phrase being defined.
>
> >> > See my reply to Ball.
>
> >> No, give me a real definition.
>
> > The notion of moral relevance is fundamental, it hasn't got a
> > definition. You yourself used it when you said that race and year of
> > birth were not morally relevant but the cognitive capacities
> > correlated with species were.
>
> I didn't ask for a definition of moral relevance, I asked for a definition
> of the phrase "relevantly similar". You use the phrase constantly, in fact
> it seems fundamental to your argument, yet I have never heard of the term in
> my life and can make no sense of it.
>

It means "similar in all morally relevant respects". I was assuming
the phrase "morally relevant" was what you were having trouble
understanding.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > The issue is who
> >> >> > has the most at stake.
>
> >> >> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense then
> >> >> the
> >> >> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation. Therefore
> >> >> the
> >> >> consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how its
> >> >> weighted.
>
> >> > What Peter Singer advocates is equal consideration.
>
> >> No it isn't.
>
> > Sigh. You admit that you don't understand the concept. So maybe you
> > should pay attention to my attempts to explain it to you, rather than
> > decide for yourself whether it applies.
>
> You don't understand it either. You think that "it has a nice ring to it"
> equals understanding.

No, that's just your ignorant view of the matter. You're convinced
that just because you don't understand it, no-one else could either.

> DeGrazia himself in the first chapter of his book
> admits he doesn't really understand it.

No, that is not true.

> He spends the entire book trying to
> show why others ought to be obliged to disprove a concept he created which
> makes no sense.
>

He spends Chapter 3 trying to establish a rebuttable presumption in
favour of equal consideration and spends the rest of the book
discussing what that amounts to. You've never offered any respectable
critique of Chapter 3. DeGrazia is a respected academic philosopher
and by your own admission you're not all that well-read in philosophy.
You're basically saying that academic standards in philosophy are
shoddy and that you can see this but other respected academic
philosophers can't. You've been saying this from day one, and yet you
call me arrogant. You say you're open the possibility that some
academic philosophers might have something to teach you, but I think
there are grounds for doubting this. Shouldn't you perhaps be a bit
more open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

> >> >> >> > Preference utilitarianism is
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the
> >> >> >> > relevantly
> >> >> >> > similar interests of any two sentient beings equally, regardless
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > species.
>
> >> >> >> Chickens want to live, I want to eat chicken. Who wins?
>
> >> >> > It depends on who has more at stake.
>
> >> >> Who wins, me or the chicken? I want your opinion.
>
> >> > I'm not a preference utilitarian. If I were, I wouldn't think it would
> >> > be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by just
> >> > because you felt hungry, no.
>
> >> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important than
> >> the
> >> life of a marginally sentient one?
>
> > Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
>
> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
>

Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.


>
>
> >> > When the chicken was brought into
> >> > existence because of your desire to eat it, the issue is more complex.
>
> >> Do tell.
>
> > According to Peter Singer, anyway. He thinks that you may be justified
> > in bringing a being who does not have a concept of itself as a subject
> > existing over time and then killing it painlessly, assuming you
> > couldn't bring it into existence without prematurely killing it.
> > However in "Practical Ethics" he suggests it may be best to have a
> > general rule of thumb not to kill animals for food, because the
> > temptation to ignore their important interests when we use them for
> > economic purposes would be too great.
>
> Good for him. Do you always let authors do your thinking for you?

No, I never do that, you patronizing twit, I always think critically
about the ideas I study and I think there are plenty of good
criticisms to be made of preference utilitarianism, although I do
think it is a theory worth taking seriously. The purpose of the
exercise was to explain to you what preference utilitarianism says for
the purpose of illustrating the concept of equal consideration, not to
evaluate preference utilitarianism. The best way to explain what equal
consideration is is to discuss different versions of different ethical
frameworks that have been considered in the literature and show which
of them are consistent with equal consideration and which aren't,
thereby illustrating the concept. I was starting this process by
trying to explain to you just one version of one ethical framework
which is consistent with equal consideration. We didn't get very far.

> Something
> happened to your mind in all those years of studying math theory.
>

I don't think so. One of the habits you learn when studying maths is
never to accept anything without proof.

> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > Yeah, you're right, complex issues are raised in actually applying
> >> >> > preference utilitarianism, and it may not be absolutely clear what
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > actually entails about our situation. You want to argue about this,
> >> >> > maybe you should thrash it out with Peter Singer. I'm just
> >> >> > presenting
> >> >> > it to you as an example.
>
> >> >> You're the one who claimed that preference utilitarianism is
> >> >> consistent
> >> >> wih
> >> >> equal consideration. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> >> > It gives equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> >> > sentient beings.
>
> >> You don't have the slightest idea do you? You just type catch-phrases and
> >> expect people to stand in awe of your intellect.
>
> > No, I don't. I don't think this concept is particularly hard to
> > understand, and I think I'm giving a good explanation of it. If the
> > explanation I give is not clear, then we can illustrate it by
> > considering specifical ethical frameworks, which is what I've been
> > trying to do. But you haven't been very good at listening.
>
> You're a fraud. You can't even explain what "relevantly similar" means.
>

I've been trying. I don't think it's such a hard concept to
understand, but you apparently are having problems. You're right that
there are no clear-cut rules for determining whether a given
difference is morally relevant, but some claims about what is morally
relevant are not very plausible and call for some justification before
they should be accepted. Or so most students of the subject think it
reasonable to believe, anyway. I mean, are you suggesting that we
shouldn't accept any ethical argument until we have absolutely clear-
cut criteria for which ethical arguments are acceptable, as in
mathematics? Ethics isn't like mathematics.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> Sure, but the fundamental issue is the use of animals as a food
> >> >> source,
> >> >> and
> >> >> he doesn't challenge that.
>
> >> > Well, actually, he does in "Practical Ethics", but he may have
> >> > softened his views somewhat since then.
>
> >> Maybe he flops around as the situation warrants, ARAs tend to do that.
>
> >> >> >> >> > It's set forth
> >> >> >> >> > in "Practical Ethics". He only thinks it's acceptable provided
> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > reasonable to assume that the animals do not have a concept of
> >> >> >> >> > themselves as an entity existing over time.
>
> >> >> >> >> That is essentially why everyone feels justified in the way we
> >> >> >> >> treat
> >> >> >> >> animals. It captures one major component of the difference
> >> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >> >> humans
> >> >> >> >> and other species, seeing oneself as mortal.
>
> >> >> >> > Well, maybe you would find Singer's philosophy congenial then. I
> >> >> >> > work
> >> >> >> > with an organization called "Animal Liberation" which was founded
> >> >> >> > shortly after the publication of Singer's book of the same title,
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > regards itself as having goals that are based on Singer's
> >> >> >> > philosophy.
> >> >> >> > At the same time a lot of people who work with the organization
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > strongly critical of Singer's philosophy and regard themselves as
> >> >> >> > animal rights advocates. I am inclined to think there are some
> >> >> >> > constraints on how we should promote the good, so to that extent
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > disagree with Singer, but Singer has had a lot of influence on
> >> >> >> > me.
>
> >> >> >> Everyone thinks there are constraints on how we should promote the
> >> >> >> good,
> >> >> >> such as not experimenting on humans against their will to advance
> >> >> >> medical
> >> >> >> science. That's normal.
>
> >> >> > Singer only thinks constraints apply when following them leads to
> >> >> > better consequences.
>
> >> >> What do YOU think?
>
> >> > I don't agree with him.
>
> >> Not Singer, you.
>
> > I just told you what I think.
>
> No, you told me some of Singer's supposed thoughts and said "nay", that
> tells me nothing about you.
>

Well, I'm very interested in the issue of what constraints there are.
I think it's quite central to these issues that we're always
discussing on these newsgroups. And I don't have particularly well-
defined or confident views on the matter. I'm not sure what to think.
I've read some quite powerful criticisms of the view that there are
constraints, and I'm not sure how I'd reply to them. Maybe there are
no constraints at all, as Peter Singer thinks, or maybe there are
constraints so strong that we're all obliged to grow all our own food,
or maybe it's somewhere in between. I think most people who had
studied all the arguments on both sides would agree that it's a
difficult issue. I'm inclined to think that there are some
constraints, and I'm not convinced that there are constraints so
strong that I should grow all my own food, but I acknowledge that it's
a difficult and serious issue. And you, I know, are going to denigrate
me for not "saying anything of substance" on the subject. Well, saying
something on this subject that is actually backed up by cogent
argument, as opposed to just saying "what seems right to you", is
actually quite a difficult task. I'll let you know when I think I've
got something interesting to say.

> [..]
>
> >> > Then we should err on the side of caution in the case of nonhuman
> >> > animals as well.
>
> >> Why? There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the animals we use
> >> for food possess any higher cognitive abilities.
>
> > Same amount of evidence as there is with cognitively impaired humans.
>
> False, there is every reason to believe that cognitively impaired humans
> have rich inner lives.
>

*All* cognitively impaired humans have much richer inner lives than
any nonhuman animal? What, exactly, is the evidence for that?

> >> On the other hand, it is
> >> very plausible that even impaired humans still do possess such abilities,
> >> even in some hidden form.
>
> > The conjecture is equally plausible in both cases.
>
> No, because no healthy non-human has ever demonstrated human-like cognitive
> powers. It's not plausible to assume that they do.
>

The same could be said about plenty of cognitively impaired humans.

You're asserting that a fundamental divide exists between *all* humans
and *all* nonhumans, I simply don't see any good evidence for that
claim. You're welcome to provide me with some.

>
>
> >> That's why we err on the side of caution with
> >> humans. Besides it remains a completely implausible idea that the human
> >> race
> >> could function while "erring on the side of caution" when dealing with
> >> animals. We couldn't do it if we wanted to.- 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, it did,

No, it didn't.


>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

Yes, it's perfectly coherent. You're just thick.


>>> 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.

By my account, when you say that animals are due equal
consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. Get
your ****ing faggot ass busy and do it. Or shut the
**** up.


>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of
>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit.
>>
>
> No, it's elementary that

It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who
makes the assertion.


>>>>>> 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.

ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle.


>>>>>>>> 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

I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it.


>>>>>> 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

Not a word.

>
>> And, of course, you can't,
>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position.
>>
>
> Silly clown.

Stupid effeminate ass-suck.


>>>> 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.

Thorough non sequitur. As ever.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 17, 1:46 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 10:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 4:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green, immature, delicate flower little boy rupie wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricated a story about David Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having *** sex on a houseboat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a fabrication. He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less. You snipped the main point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****witted question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was a rhetorical question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with the slightest grip on reality
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was a very revealing question that shows you do care, despite your
>>>>>>>>>>>> unethical protestations that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any rational observer could see that
>>>>>>>>>> That it was a very revealing question showing your lack of maturity
>>>>>>>>>> and lack of seriousness of purpose.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is right, rupie. You do care. You showed it.
>>>>>>>> You also showed you're a green, immature boy.
>>>>>>> What do you suppose I care about,
>>>>>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>>>>>> "Why would any adult care one way or the other?"
>>>>> Which is obviously a rhetorical question
>>>> No - which shows you care. QED.
>>> It really is a marvel
>> No, it's really no big deal, rupie.
>>
>
> What a

What a consistent ass-kicking you get, rupie!


>>>>>> Rudy Canoza:
>>>>>> "Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?"
>>>>> Quite egregiously missing the point.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> rupie the green, immature, delicate flower of a boy:
>>>>>> "I don't care in the least."
>>>>> Patiently trying
>>>> Incompetently lying.
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza:
>>>>>> "That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't
>>>>>> have posed your ****witted question."
>>>>> Manifesting extraordinary
>>>> Rather ordinary ability to catch you out.
>>>>>> You care that people care about it, rupie.
>>>>> "People" do not care about it
>>>> You do - that's why you posed your ****witted question.
>>> See, it's interesting.
>> To a psychotic, maybe. Not to normal folks.
>>
>
> No, to people

To psychotics, rupie; not to normal folk.s

Rupert wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 14, 10:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 10:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2:16 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 8:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a
>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has never been in dispute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are
>>> denying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally
>>> justified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat
>>> is morally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it
>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at
>>> all, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case
>>> against it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examined at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He does think it's morally permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course he does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false bifurcation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think
>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral question about it that has been answered.
>>> That's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not what he thinks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't admit it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, the view that there is no serious moral
>>> issue raised by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eating meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical
>>> ability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows
>>> diligence, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have
>>> mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talent or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do know, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I say,
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty
>>> of people
>>>>>>>>>>>> with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any
>>> way.
>>>>>>>>>>> Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my
>>> Ph.D. was
>>>>>>>>>>> worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>>>>>>>>>> Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the
>>> taxpayers.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
>>>>>>>>> mathematical research.
>>>>>>>> No. If you're spending your "professional" time bothering
>>> people as a
>>>>>>>> <snicker> telemarketer, then your Ph.D. obviously was a waste
>>> for the
>>>>>>>> taxpayer.
>>>>>>> Incidentally, we are not bothering people.
>>>>>> You are. Telemarketing = bothering people.
>>>>> Most of the people I speak with are perfectly polite to me, and
>>> many
>>>>> are pleased to receive my call.
>>>> That's a ****ing lie.
>
>>> No.
>
>
>> Yes, it's a ****ing lie. People hate telemarketers.
>
>
>
> Yes, there

"Yes, they hate them."


>>>>>>> Anyway, I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. It just means
>>>>>>> this is the best job that I've managed to find within two months
>>> of
>>>>>>> job search.
>>>>>> With a Ph.D. in maths. Priceless!
>>>>> Well, I'm glad you find it entertaining
>>>> It's a ****ing laugh riot, rupie. What a ****!
>
>>> I know a lot of people who've just finished a Ph.D. who are in the
>>> same situation:
>
>
>> Frantically trying to persuade the poor sap manual
>> laborer/taxpayer that he "invested" in something
>> worthwhile. It won't sell.
>
>
>
> Putting aside the question of whether research in pure mathematics
> should be publicly subsidized

You ripped off the taxpayer, rupie. You wheedled a
Ph.D. in maths, and now you're [scoff] a career
telemarketer.


>>>>>>>>>>> Now you're
>>>>>>>>>>> saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not
>>> substantially
>>>>>>>>>>> more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>>>>>>>>>> And that's true.
>>>>>>>>> If it were
>>>>>>>> It is.
>>>>>>> You don't have a clue one way or the other
>>>>>> One way or ANother, you semi-literate slag.
>>>>> "One way or the other" is a perfectly legitimate construction
>>>> Wrong. It assumes there are only two ways, and that's
>>>> bullshit. "One way or ANother", you stupid blithering
>>>> ****.
>
>>> No, there are only two ways.
>
>
>> False.
>
>
>
> What's the third option,

THINK, ****wit.


>>>>>> But I do have a clue - in fact, much more than that.
>>>>> On the basis of what?
>>>> Education, experience, innate ability.
>
>>> None of which bears on the issue
>
>
>> Of course they do.
>
>
>
> absolutely none of education, experience, or alleged "innate
> ability" gives you the least insight

I know that you're not particularly talented, rupie.
You wouldn't be a telemarketer if you were.


>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you
>>> did.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>>>>>>>>>> So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That
>>> figures.
>>>>>>>>>> You're unethical in the extreme.
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>> Completely.
>>>>>>> I am more ethical than you
>>>>>> You are wholly unethical, not least because you lie about your
>>> lack of
>>>>>> ethics.
>>>>> Okay
>>>> Yes, okay.
>
>>> Silly fool.
>
>
>> Stupid psychotic ****.

Well, then!


>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working in a
>>>>>>>>>>> telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>>>>>>>>>> So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that
>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>> sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>>>>>>>>> I only handed it in a couple of months ago.
>>>>>>>> Might as well have been five years.
>>>>>>> As usual
>>>>>> !!!
>>>>> What are you making exclamation marks about here, you weirdo? Okay,
>>>>> so you think I'll be stuck in telemarketing for the next five
>>>>> years.
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Goddamnit, rupie, I'm about to split
>>>> my sides!
>
>
>>> Strange fellow.
>
>
>> Nope. But it is just ****ing hilarious that it is only
>> now dawning on you that you're a ****ing career
>> telemarketer with a Ph.D. in maths. Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
>
> Um, yeah, right, Ball. And I'm the one who's psychotic? Dear oh dear.
> You poor sad man.

Right.


>>>>> I've just completed quite a good Ph.D. thesis in maths
>>>> As if anyone is going to take your [highly
>>>> self-interested] word for it, you ****.
>
>>> They won't need to.
>
>
>> **** off.
>
>
>
> There there

**** off, sales-boy.


>>>>>>>>>>> I spend almost all of my spare
>>>>>>>>>> !!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> time engaged in study and research.
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that special.
>>>>>>>>> You're such a joke. I'm a productive mathematician.
>>>>>>>> You're a worthless, dinner-interrupting telemarketer - i.e.,
>>> scum.
>>>>>>>> People hate your guts.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you, *writing* out "sigh"?
>>>> You ****ing baboon.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example,
>>> something far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside your expertise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>>>>>>>>>>> This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>>>>>>>>>> I am, and I am correct.
>>>>>>>>> 'Fraid not.
>>>>>>>> I am correct.
>>>>>>> You think you are
>>>>>> I am.
>>>>> It gets more convincing
>>>> Of course.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates
>>> Clark medal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a
>>> candidate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it, nor for any Nobel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is
>>> the Fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of
>>> mathematics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and
>>> I've only got
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely
>>> that I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a certainly that you won't.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>>>>>>>>>> It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>>>>>>>>> The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that
>>> matter is
>>>>>>>> The fact that you're here.
>>>>>>> That has no bearing on the matter at all.
>>>>>> It has all the bearing in the world. The fact that you spend a
>>> HUGE
>>>>>> amount of time here - you really are a wheezy windbag - instead of
>>>>>> doing research speaks volumes.
>>>>> Well, that's a very interesting view you have, but the bottom
>>>>> line is, I'm extremely well-read in many different areas of
>>>>> mathematics,
>>>> But not *doing* anything there. SO it was a waste of
>>>> the taxpayers' money.
>
>
>>> No, it wasn't.
>
>
>> It was.
>
>
>
> If the purpose of taxpayers' money spent on subsidizing research

You ****ed away the taxpayer's money, rupie. You're
doing telemarketing [****ing christ].

>>> I did some interesting research,
>
>> Of zero use to the poor taxpayer.
>
>
>
> It may or may not be.

Zero use.


>>>>> It may well be that I'll never win the Fields Medal
>>>> That's a guarantee.
>
>>> That's a conjecture made in
>
>
>> ...absolute rock-solid certainty.
>
>
>
> In utter

Certainty.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>>
>
> You've provided no

You've provided no support for your assertion animals
are due equal consideration.


>>>>>>> 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.
>> It's just rupie blabbering away sophomorically again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>> They can't articulate any such interest.
>>
>
> Irrelevant.

Fully relevant.


>>>>> 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.
>> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
>> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
>>
>
> No.

Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
UNNECESSARILY, of course - you could obtain your food
otherwise.


>>>>>>>> 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?
>> How do you justify equal consideration, rupie, other than to blabber
>> "prove that it shouldn't be the standard?", which as you know is
>> rhetorically and logically invalid?
>>
>
> The formal principle of justice entails that the burden of proof is on
> those who deny equal consideration.

No such principle. It's a fabrication of lazy ****s
like you who CANNOT prove your assertions, and are
trying to weasel out of your burden.


>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, it did,
>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse.
>
> Rational, decent people

You don't know anything about them.

On Jul 5, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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:1182053604.675516.3068 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242.26 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>
> No, it didn't.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes, it's perfectly coherent. You're just thick.
>

I'm afraid that's not an argument, Ball. I've argued my claim, your
job is now to address that argument. Saying "you're just thick"
doesn't cut it.

> >>> 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.
>
> By my account, when you say that animals are due equal
> consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. Get
> your ****ing faggot ass busy and do it. Or shut the
> **** up.
>

I'm not really interested in bringing you round to a more enlightened
view of the situation, pathetic homophobe. I know that you're beyond
hope. I give talks in animal ethics on a regular basis and the people
who listen to them acknowledge that my arguments are interesting and
deserve to be engaged with seriously. What you think of them is not
really all that important. Most people here think you're a joke,
haven't you noticed? If you admit that you can't give me any good
reason why I should change my views, then *you* shut the **** up.

> >> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of
> >> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit.
>
> > No, it's elementary that
>
> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who
> makes the assertion.
>

As discussed already, you don't understand how burden of proof
arguments work.

> >>>>>> 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.
>
> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>

Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth would disagree
with you.

> >>>>>>>> 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
>
> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it.
>

You're enjoying the delusional fantasy world that you live in. I
suppose that's one good thing.

> >>>>>> 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
>
> Not a word.
>

Very interesting. It seems to be used often enough, though.

>
>
> >> And, of course, you can't,
> >> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position.
>
> > Silly clown.
>
> Stupid effeminate ass-suck.
>

Ball, I'm not in the least effeminate, and if I were, I wouldn't
regard it as anything to be the least bit concerned about, because I'm
not a stupid bigot like you.

> >>>> 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.
>
> Thorough non sequitur. As ever.

No, Ball, it's very sequitur, despite your trouble in grasping the
fact. You were talking risible nonsense about how empathy for animals
is "feminine" and rationality and moral philosophy are "masculine" and
therefore the former is to be derided. You were also laughably
projecting your silly concerns about "masculinity" and "femininity"
onto me. Also, you were deluding yourself into thinking that you'd
come up with rational criticisms of my argument, when in fact you've
done nothing to address it whatsoever. You were acting like a silly
fool, as usual, so I called you one. Perfectly sequitur.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 6:50 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>> I plainly *DO* understand, rupie, and you plainly do not. You want to
>> make the assertion about moral equality: the burden of proof is on
>> you, and you fail to meet it.
>>
>
> You make an assertion about difference in moral status.

YOU are the one making an assertion, rupie. Defend
it...if you can <snicker>


>>>>> 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.
>> Did you re-read it, you stupid sniveling gutless ****?
>>
>
> Yes, I did just re-read it and my characterization of your position
> was

utter bullshit.

Yes.


>>>>> 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.
>> You began by asserting that animals deserve equal moral
>> consideration. You do not support your assertion (you can't.) The
>> burden is on you to support your assertion, NOT on anyone else to show
>> your assertion is false. Get busy.
>>
>
> It's sufficient for me to point out

You "point out" nothing, ****. You make an assertion,
and you can't defend it. You're done.


>>>> 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?
>> I'm not interested in "how" he might meet it, ****witted little skirt-
>> boy.
>
> Why not?

It's irrelevant, skirt-boy. See below.


>> I'm only interested in pointing out that the burden is his,
>> because he is the one making the assertion. And of course, when you
>> assert - without support - that animals deserve equal moral
>> consideration, the burden of proof is on you...and you fail to meet
>> it.

That.


>>>>> 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?
>> Go read what the abolitionists wrote. I'm not doing your assignments
>> for you, rupie, you little skirt-boy.
>>
>>>> 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
>> No.
>>
>
> Of course you are.

No.


>> You're not meeting your burden of proof, and that's all there is to
>> it.
>>
>
> If the presumption in favour of equal consideration

No such presumption.


>>>>> 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.
>> No, I'm saying the burden is on you, and it is; and you fail.

You fail utterly.


>>>>> 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.
>> No, you persuade me, skirt-boy. You won't, of course, because you
>> have no idea how to start.
>>
>
> If I said "I don't think that Negroes are entitled to equal
> consideration, you persuade me that they are", you would clearly have
> no idea how to start either.

You're wrong, rupie. I do know.

Get busy defending your assertion, skirt-boy.


>>>>> 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,
>> I didn't say that, rupie.
>>
>
> Well, what the hell are you saying then?

I'm saying that you are failing to support your crucial
assertion. You are - an utter failure.


>>> 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.
>> I know enough to know that axioms don't just exist in the ether,
>> ****wit. They first are proved, THEN they are used as axioms later
>> on.
>>
>
> Er, not really, no.

Yes, really. I didn't do Ph.D. level maths, rupie, but
I did enough. I also know how axioms work in other fields.

You can't merely assert something is "axiomatic", rupie.


>> You want your moral beliefs to be treated as axiomatically correct
>> from the outset, rupie, and I'm here to shove that right down your
>> skinny pencil-neck throat.
>>
>
> I'm taking the formal principle of justice

Crap. Crap that assumes one of its basic premises as
axiomatic, so the entire endeavor is crap.


>>
>>>> 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.
>> You have not.
>
> Yes, I have,

You haven't, rupie. You've fallen back on mere (and
empty) ipse dixit. It's all you have.


>> You have consistently shirked your rhetorical
>> responsibility, and you always will.
>>
>> It is not axiomatic that animals deserve equal consideration, rupie.
>> That's just reality.
>
> The formal principle of justice

Crap. Something that, again, assumes that which it
must support. Burden of proof: NOT MET.

Rupert the dancing queer wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, it did,
>> No, it didn't.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Yes, it's perfectly coherent. You're just thick.
>>
>
> I'm afraid that's

It's the truth.


>>>>> 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.
>> By my account, when you say that animals are due equal
>> consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. Get
>> your ****ing faggot ass busy and do it. Or shut the
>> **** up.
>>
>
> I'm not really interested in

You can't meet your burden of proof. Established.


>>>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of
>>>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit.
>>> No, it's elementary that
>> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who
>> makes the assertion.
>>
>
> As discussed already

As bullshitted already...

You don't meet your burden of proof. You make an
assertion, you have the burden of supporting it. Always.


>>>>>>>> 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
>> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>>
>
> Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

You're full of shit. There is no such axiomatic principle.


>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it.
>>
>
> You're enjoying the

I'm enjoying kicking the shit out of you, boy. Yes.


>>>>>>>> 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
>> Not a word.
>>
>
> Very interesting.

No. Your fabrication of phony words is not interesting.


>>>> And, of course, you can't,
>>>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position.
>>> Silly clown.
>> Stupid effeminate ass-suck.
>>
>
> I'm not in the least effeminate,

Yes, you are, you limp-wristed little queer.


>>>>>> 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.
>> Thorough non sequitur. As ever.
>
> No,

Yes, it's non sequitur.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
>>> overall
>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
>>> future time,
>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
>>> death for
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> sentient being, like a chicken?
>>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
>>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
>>> is not
>>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
>>> My
>>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
>>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
>>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
>>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
>>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
>>>>> This is nonsense
>>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
>>> That's not an argument.
>> It's a observation based in fact.
>>
>
> What facts?

Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
and manipulated to get to where you want to go.


>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
>>> interests of all
>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
>>> chicken?
>>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
>>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
>>> used in
>>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
>>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
>>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
>>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
>>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
>>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
>>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
>>> Nonsense.
>> Not an argument, and anyway false.
>>
>
> You presented no argument

False.


>>>>>>>> The issue is who
>>>>>>>> has the most at stake.
>>>>>>> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense
>>> then the
>>>>>>> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation.
>>> Therefore
>>>>>>> the consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how
>>> its
>>>>>>> weighted.
>>>>>> Arbitrarily, so that the bullshit sophist "A.L."
>>>>>> utilitarian "wins" his little rhetorical game.
>>>>> Nonsense. It's not weighted.
>>>> Bullshit. You just don't know what the ****ing hell
>>>> you're talking about. Of *course* there are weights,
>>>> you stupid ****. But you ****s just make them up.
>>> No,
>> Yes, there are weights, rupie - politically chosen weights.

On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> 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?
> >> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>
> >>> 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.
> >> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>
> > You've provided no
>
> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
> are due equal consideration.
>

False.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >> It's just rupie blabbering away sophomorically again.
>
> >>>>>>> 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).
> >> They can't articulate any such interest.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Fully relevant.
>

How does it have a bearing on any issue we were discussing?

>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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.
> >> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
> >> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
>
> > No.
>
> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?

The same reason you do. I've yet to be persuaded that there's any
compelling reason to do otherwise. On the other hand I do think there
are some limits on how much we should contribute to unnecessary
suffering, you apparently don't agree with me on that point.

> UNNECESSARILY, of course - you could obtain your food
> otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> 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?
> >> How do you justify equal consideration, rupie, other than to blabber
> >> "prove that it shouldn't be the standard?", which as you know is
> >> rhetorically and logically invalid?
>
> > The formal principle of justice entails that the burden of proof is on
> > those who deny equal consideration.
>
> No such principle.

A "master of logic and philosophy", as you claim to be, would have
some familiarity with Aristotle.

> It's a fabrication of lazy ****s
> like you who CANNOT prove your assertions, and are
> trying to weasel out of your burden.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> 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:1182053604.675516.30 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242. ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
> >> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse.
>
> > Rational, decent people
>
> You don't know anything about them.

Do you labour under the belief that you are a paragon of rationality
and decency, Ball?

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>>>>> 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.
>>>> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>>> You've provided no
>> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
>> are due equal consideration.
>>
>
> False.

No, true, rupie. You've asserted it without support.
Instead, you've tried to shift the burden onto your
opponents (betters),telling them to disprove your
assertion. It doesn't work that way, skirt-boy. You
need to support your assertion, which you have not
done. Get busy, skirt-boy.


>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> It's just rupie blabbering away sophomorically again.
>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>> They can't articulate any such interest.
>>> Irrelevant.
>> Fully relevant.
>>
>
> How does it

When entire species can't articulate their interests,
rupie, it's relevant.


>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
>>>> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
>>> No.
>> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
>
> The same reason you do.

YOU, rupie, claim the processes violate "rights". It's
an issue only for you, not for me.


>> UNNECESSARILY, of course - you could obtain your food
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> How do you justify equal consideration, rupie, other than to blabber
>>>> "prove that it shouldn't be the standard?", which as you know is
>>>> rhetorically and logically invalid?
>>> The formal principle of justice entails that the burden of proof is on
>>> those who deny equal consideration.
>> No such principle.
>
> A "master of

No such principle.


>> It's a fabrication of lazy ****s
>> like you who CANNOT prove your assertions, and are
>> trying to weasel out of your burden.

Established.


>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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.
>>>>> Yes, it did,
>>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse.
>>> Rational, decent people
>> You don't know anything about them.
>
> Do you labour under

You don't know anything about decent, rational people,
skirt-boy.

On Jul 5, 3:36 pm, Rudy Canoza > the pathetic
and rather laughable homophobe wrote:
> Rupert the dancing queer wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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:1182053604.675516.30 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797242. ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
> >> No, it didn't.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >> Yes, it's perfectly coherent. You're just thick.
>
> > I'm afraid that's
>
> It's the truth.
>
> >>>>> 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.
> >> By my account, when you say that animals are due equal
> >> consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. Get
> >> your ****ing faggot ass busy and do it. Or shut the
> >> **** up.
>
> > I'm not really interested in
>
> You can't meet your burden of proof. Established.
>

I can't if the formal principle of justice isn't accepted, no. Nor
could any movement to end discrimination have met its burden of proof
under those conditions. And you can't meet your burden of proof in any
case.

> >>>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of
> >>>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit.
> >>> No, it's elementary that
> >> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who
> >> makes the assertion.
>
> > As discussed already
>
> As bullshitted already...
>
> You don't meet your burden of proof. You make an
> assertion, you have the burden of supporting it. Always.
>

I have supported it.

> >>>>>>>> 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
> >> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>
> > Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth
>
> Argumentum ad verecundiam.
>

Depends whether we're talking about the validity of the principle or
just the fact that it's a widely recognized principle in moral
philosophy. If we're talking about the latter, then it's not
argumentum ad verecundiam, I'm just pointing out your ignorance. If
we're talking about the former, then yeah, fine, I have no argument
for the formal principle of justice, any more than you have any
argument against it, or any more than I have any argument against a
lecturer at my university who doubts the axiom of infinity. However, I
maintain that if you reject the formal principle of justice, then many
moral views which are widely held today, and which you seem to accept
too, are left without support. You've given me no argument to the
contrary.


> You're full of shit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it.
>
> > You're enjoying the
>
> I'm enjoying kicking the shit out of you, boy. Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >> Not a word.
>
> > Very interesting.
>
> No. Your fabrication of phony words is not interesting.
>

I didn't make it up. A lot of people use it. It gets plenty of hits on
Google, for example. However, it doesn't appear to be in the
dictionary.

> >>>> And, of course, you can't,
> >>>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position.
> >>> Silly clown.
> >> Stupid effeminate ass-suck.
>
> > I'm not in the least effeminate,
>
> Yes, you are, you limp-wristed little queer.
>

Ball, there are many reasons why this is pathetic. You once claimed
that I use the word "racist" as a meaningless word to smear anyone I
didn't like. More than once, actually. In fact, I was simply pointing
out the fact that your racism was easily verifiable from the public
record. Well, you use "queer" as a meaningless word to smear anyone
you don't like. It doesn't mean anything. It's just swearing. I don't
care in the least about your view that I'm effeminate and "queer". I
know that none of the people who actually know me share that view,
but, more to the point, if I were effeminate and "queer" I don't see
anything wrong with that. I don't buy into your stupid prejudices. So
I really don't know what you are trying to achieve with all this
nonsense. Unless your goal is to amuse me.

> >>>>>> 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.
> >> Thorough non sequitur. As ever.
>
> > No,
>
> Yes, it's non sequitur.

You really are a funny clown, Ball.

On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675516. ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.79724 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
> >>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse.
> >>> Rational, decent people
> >> You don't know anything about them.
>
> > Do you labour under
>
> You don't know anything about decent, rational people,
> skirt-boy.

Well, that's a very interesting view you have there, Ball. I suppose
decent, rational people use "skirt-boy" as a term of abuse for anyone
they don't like?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >>> 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?
>> >> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>>
>> > You've provided no
>>
>> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
>> are due equal consideration.
>>
>
> False.

Get serious, whenever asked to provide support for the idea you reply that
"equal consideration" requires no support and that the onus is on its
detractors to show why it should NOT be granted.

Then when your own cushy lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering is
brought up you simper that you are no under no moral obligation to do
anything more than what you personally feel comfortable with.

THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe.

[..]

> >> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
> >> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?

>> > No.
>>
>> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
>
> The same reason you do. I've yet to be persuaded that there's any
> compelling reason to do otherwise.

E-Q-U-A-L consideration you idiot.

****!

On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >> > On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >>> 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?
> >> >> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer, okay?
>
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>
> >> > You've provided no
>
> >> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
> >> are due equal consideration.
>
> > False.
>
> Get serious, whenever asked to provide support for the idea you reply that
> "equal consideration" requires no support and that the onus is on its
> detractors to show why it should NOT be granted.
>

I've made a case that there's a presumption in favour of equal
consideration. I've never seen any good criticisms of that case or any
good attempts to rebut the presumption.

> Then when your own cushy lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering is
> brought up you simper that you are no under no moral obligation to do
> anything more than what you personally feel comfortable with.
>

No, that is not true. I have never said any such thing.

> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe.
>

If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well?

> [..]
>
> > >> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
> > >> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
> >> > No.
>
> >> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
>
> > The same reason you do. I've yet to be persuaded that there's any
> > compelling reason to do otherwise.
>
> E-Q-U-A-L consideration you idiot.
>
> ****!

I've yet to be persuaded that equal consideration entails that we must
abolish commercial agriculture, or that individuals now have the
obligation to stop buying its products, which is precisely what I said
above. Equal consideration has some fairly radical consequences for
how we should produce food.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:13:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:52:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:29:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>>>>>>>>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>>>>>>>>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>>>>>>>>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of
>>>>>>>>animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
>>>>>>> and bulls used for fighting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fine, I agree. Animals that are going to be subjected to inhumane
>>>>>>treatment
>>>>>>should never be brought into existence. That is the same way vegans
>>>>>>think,
>>>>>>except they think that all commercial farming is inhumane. I don't
>>>>>>happen
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>agree with them, neither do you. Where you and I disagree is that you
>>>>>>argue
>>>>>>that vegans can be criticized for "denying life" to animals,
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you do. You have stated it explicitly at least a dozen times
>>>
>>> I challenge you to provide a dozen examples. Failing to do
>>>that I challenge you to provide 7. Failing to do that I challenge
>>>you to provide 5.
>>
>>I don't respond to challenges from ****wits
>
> I've noticed. You claim that there are at least a dozen examples,

There are.

> yet you're afraid to accept the challenge to present even 5.

I don't respond to challenges from ****wits

All
> evidence again suggests that you are simply lying, as all of it
> almost always does.

And if I do look them up, then what? See, waste of time ****wit.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> Rupert wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> 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?
>> >> >> Go ahead and ask them, rupie. Get back to us with their answer,
>> >> >> okay?
>>
>> >> >>> 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.
>> >> >> "equal consideration" - this great assumed but unsupported ideal.
>>
>> >> > You've provided no
>>
>> >> You've provided no support for your assertion animals
>> >> are due equal consideration.
>>
>> > False.
>>
>> Get serious, whenever asked to provide support for the idea you reply
>> that
>> "equal consideration" requires no support and that the onus is on its
>> detractors to show why it should NOT be granted.
>>
>
> I've made a case that there's a presumption in favour of equal
> consideration.

You haven't "made a case", saying there's a case isn't making one.

> I've never seen any good criticisms of that case

No case.

or any
> good attempts to rebut the presumption.

No presumption, none at all.
>
>> Then when your own cushy lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering is
>> brought up you simper that you are no under no moral obligation to do
>> anything more than what you personally feel comfortable with.
>>
>
> No, that is not true. I have never said any such thing.

It's exactly what you say, in almost those precise words.

>
>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe.
>>
>
> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well?

Because I do what I am comfortable with and I give others the respect to
allow them to do the same without implying that they're immoral for not
sacrificing enough.

[..]

>> > >> Does that include the farming to put food on your table, rupie? You
>> > >> know - the farming that wantonly slaughters animals collaterally?
>> >> > No.
>>
>> >> Then why do you participate in it, rupie?
>>
>> > The same reason you do. I've yet to be persuaded that there's any
>> > compelling reason to do otherwise.
>>
>> E-Q-U-A-L consideration you idiot.
>>
>> ****!
>
> I've yet to be persuaded that equal consideration entails that we must
> abolish commercial agriculture, or that individuals now have the
> obligation to stop buying its products, which is precisely what I said
> above. Equal consideration has some fairly radical consequences for
> how we should produce food.

If those animals were humans we would have to stop displacing, poisoning and
dismembering them. They are not, so we don't stop, ergo no equal
consideration. If we tried we'd fail.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 19, 1:29 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 18, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> > Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
>> >> >> >> > overall
>> >> >> >> > preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
>> >> >> >> > future
>> >> >> >> > time,
>> >> >> >> > of the actions available to us.
>>
>> >> >> >> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to death
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> another
>> >> >> >> sentient being, like a chicken?
>>
>> >> >> > Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
>>
>> >> >> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it is
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time. My
>> >> >> interest
>> >> >> in consuming chicken wins.
>>
>> >> > Well, Peter Singer would not be in unqualified agreement with you.
>> >> > He
>> >> > has a discussion of this in Chapter 5 of "Practical Ethics". Please
>> >> > don't whinge about my referring to books. We are discussing Peter
>> >> > Singer's views here, not my own. If you want to understand what
>> >> > those
>> >> > views are, you should read what he wrote.
>>
>> >> I don't, I asked YOU.
>>
>> > I don't think you're justified in killing a chicken just because you
>> > feel hungry, when other nutritious food is available.
>>
>> I have some questions about that..
>>
>> Why should I not choose the chicken if that is what satisfies me? Nobody,
>> including you, is choosing the path of least harm.
>>
>
> We're not talking about my views here, we're talking about Peter
> Singer's. I have discussed the issue of collateral deaths with him by
> email and he replied "I'm a consequentialist, so I think you should
> minimize harm - but if the costs of avoiding a harm become too high
> (including opportunity costs which prevent you from doing other good
> things) - then you are justified in causing the harm." He means that
> growing all your own food would entail sacrificing opportunities to
> alleviate suffering in other ways, such as donating money to charity
> or engaging in political activism.
>
> I did not start this discussion of preference utilitarianism for the
> purposes of defending it or suggesting that anyone fully puts it into
> practice. My intention was to explain to you what the theory says, and
> hopefully then go on to discuss other ethical frameworks, in order to
> illustrate the concept of equal consideration.
>
> Preference utilitarianism is one theory that is consistent with equal
> consideration, there are many others. There may be good criticisms of
> preference utilitarianism, such as that it ignores constraints or is
> unrealistically demanding. It is a contentious issue whether an
> adequate moral theory must not be unrealistically demanding.
>
>> How is your particular compromise between animal suffering and personal
>> convenience imposable onto me?
>>
>
> That's a different issue. I have never made any comment about your
> lifestyle. I have some views regarding the limits as to what is
> morally acceptable, as do you. I don't spend much time trying to
> change the minds of people who disagree with me. I do make some
> efforts to encourage people to change their consumption habits for the
> better and I also publicly defend my views when they come under
> attack.
>
>> How do you even know that the calories I would substitute for the chicken
>> would equate to less animal harm than the chicken?
>>
>
> There might be reasonable debate about that, perhaps.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> > A theory is consistent with equal
>> >> >> >> > consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
>> >> >> >> > moral
>> >> >> >> > decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
>> >> >> >> > interests
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > all
>> >> >> >> > sentient beings, regardless of species.
>>
>> >> >> >> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
>> >> >> >> chicken?
>>
>> >> >> > It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
>>
>> >> >> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are used
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> phrase being defined.
>>
>> >> > See my reply to Ball.
>>
>> >> No, give me a real definition.
>>
>> > The notion of moral relevance is fundamental, it hasn't got a
>> > definition. You yourself used it when you said that race and year of
>> > birth were not morally relevant but the cognitive capacities
>> > correlated with species were.
>>
>> I didn't ask for a definition of moral relevance, I asked for a
>> definition
>> of the phrase "relevantly similar". You use the phrase constantly, in
>> fact
>> it seems fundamental to your argument, yet I have never heard of the term
>> in
>> my life and can make no sense of it.
>>
>
> It means "similar in all morally relevant respects". I was assuming
> the phrase "morally relevant" was what you were having trouble
> understanding.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > The issue is who
>> >> >> > has the most at stake.
>>
>> >> >> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense then
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation.
>> >> >> Therefore
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how its
>> >> >> weighted.
>>
>> >> > What Peter Singer advocates is equal consideration.
>>
>> >> No it isn't.
>>
>> > Sigh. You admit that you don't understand the concept. So maybe you
>> > should pay attention to my attempts to explain it to you, rather than
>> > decide for yourself whether it applies.
>>
>> You don't understand it either. You think that "it has a nice ring to it"
>> equals understanding.
>
> No, that's just your ignorant view of the matter. You're convinced
> that just because you don't understand it, no-one else could either.
>
>> DeGrazia himself in the first chapter of his book
>> admits he doesn't really understand it.
>
> No, that is not true.
>
>> He spends the entire book trying to
>> show why others ought to be obliged to disprove a concept he created
>> which
>> makes no sense.
>>
>
> He spends Chapter 3 trying to establish a rebuttable presumption in
> favour of equal consideration and spends the rest of the book
> discussing what that amounts to. You've never offered any respectable
> critique of Chapter 3. DeGrazia is a respected academic philosopher
> and by your own admission you're not all that well-read in philosophy.
> You're basically saying that academic standards in philosophy are
> shoddy and that you can see this but other respected academic
> philosophers can't. You've been saying this from day one, and yet you
> call me arrogant. You say you're open the possibility that some
> academic philosophers might have something to teach you, but I think
> there are grounds for doubting this. Shouldn't you perhaps be a bit
> more open to the possibility that you might be wrong?
>
>> >> >> >> > Preference utilitarianism is
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> > consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the
>> >> >> >> > relevantly
>> >> >> >> > similar interests of any two sentient beings equally,
>> >> >> >> > regardless
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > species.
>>
>> >> >> >> Chickens want to live, I want to eat chicken. Who wins?
>>
>> >> >> > It depends on who has more at stake.
>>
>> >> >> Who wins, me or the chicken? I want your opinion.
>>
>> >> > I'm not a preference utilitarian. If I were, I wouldn't think it
>> >> > would
>> >> > be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
>> >> > just
>> >> > because you felt hungry, no.
>>
>> >> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
>> >> than
>> >> the
>> >> life of a marginally sentient one?
>>
>> > Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
>>
>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
>>
>
> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.

Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you. And that also
misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
which you might prefer I eat. Why are you so intent on convicting me of
immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?

>> >> > When the chicken was brought into
>> >> > existence because of your desire to eat it, the issue is more
>> >> > complex.
>>
>> >> Do tell.
>>
>> > According to Peter Singer, anyway. He thinks that you may be justified
>> > in bringing a being who does not have a concept of itself as a subject
>> > existing over time and then killing it painlessly, assuming you
>> > couldn't bring it into existence without prematurely killing it.
>> > However in "Practical Ethics" he suggests it may be best to have a
>> > general rule of thumb not to kill animals for food, because the
>> > temptation to ignore their important interests when we use them for
>> > economic purposes would be too great.
>>
>> Good for him. Do you always let authors do your thinking for you?
>
> No, I never do that, you patronizing twit, I always think critically
> about the ideas I study and I think there are plenty of good
> criticisms to be made of preference utilitarianism, although I do
> think it is a theory worth taking seriously. The purpose of the
> exercise was to explain to you what preference utilitarianism says for
> the purpose of illustrating the concept of equal consideration, not to
> evaluate preference utilitarianism. The best way to explain what equal
> consideration is is to discuss different versions of different ethical
> frameworks that have been considered in the literature and show which
> of them are consistent with equal consideration and which aren't,
> thereby illustrating the concept. I was starting this process by
> trying to explain to you just one version of one ethical framework
> which is consistent with equal consideration. We didn't get very far.

Maybe you could simply start talking to me person to person, adult to adult,
instead of trying to talk like a professor lecturing his freshman class.

>
>> Something
>> happened to your mind in all those years of studying math theory.
>>
>
> I don't think so. One of the habits you learn when studying maths is
> never to accept anything without proof.

You have accepted the presumption of equal consideration without a shred.

[..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Yeah, you're right, complex issues are raised in actually
>> >> >> > applying
>> >> >> > preference utilitarianism, and it may not be absolutely clear
>> >> >> > what
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > actually entails about our situation. You want to argue about
>> >> >> > this,
>> >> >> > maybe you should thrash it out with Peter Singer. I'm just
>> >> >> > presenting
>> >> >> > it to you as an example.
>>
>> >> >> You're the one who claimed that preference utilitarianism is
>> >> >> consistent
>> >> >> wih
>> >> >> equal consideration. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>>
>> >> > It gives equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
>> >> > sentient beings.
>>
>> >> You don't have the slightest idea do you? You just type catch-phrases
>> >> and
>> >> expect people to stand in awe of your intellect.
>>
>> > No, I don't. I don't think this concept is particularly hard to
>> > understand, and I think I'm giving a good explanation of it. If the
>> > explanation I give is not clear, then we can illustrate it by
>> > considering specifical ethical frameworks, which is what I've been
>> > trying to do. But you haven't been very good at listening.
>>
>> You're a fraud. You can't even explain what "relevantly similar" means.
>>
>
> I've been trying. I don't think it's such a hard concept to
> understand, but you apparently are having problems. You're right that
> there are no clear-cut rules for determining whether a given
> difference is morally relevant, but some claims about what is morally
> relevant are not very plausible and call for some justification before
> they should be accepted. Or so most students of the subject think it
> reasonable to believe, anyway. I mean, are you suggesting that we
> shouldn't accept any ethical argument until we have absolutely clear-
> cut criteria for which ethical arguments are acceptable, as in
> mathematics? Ethics isn't like mathematics.

I told you before, I am not talking about "morally relevant", that I
understand, I am talking about "relevantly similar", what does that phrase
mean? I have been using the English language for a long time and I have
never heard the phrase. It has no obvious meaning to me. I am also saying
you should not wrap your beliefs in terminology that has no clear meaning,
it's a recipe for confusion. Unless confusion is your goal..

[..]

>> >> > Then we should err on the side of caution in the case of nonhuman
>> >> > animals as well.
>>
>> >> Why? There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the animals we
>> >> use
>> >> for food possess any higher cognitive abilities.
>>
>> > Same amount of evidence as there is with cognitively impaired humans.
>>
>> False, there is every reason to believe that cognitively impaired humans
>> have rich inner lives.
>>
>
> *All* cognitively impaired humans have much richer inner lives than
> any nonhuman animal? What, exactly, is the evidence for that?

It's not necessary to take it to the extreme, there only needs to be the
possibility.

>> >> On the other hand, it is
>> >> very plausible that even impaired humans still do possess such
>> >> abilities,
>> >> even in some hidden form.
>>
>> > The conjecture is equally plausible in both cases.
>>
>> No, because no healthy non-human has ever demonstrated human-like
>> cognitive
>> powers. It's not plausible to assume that they do.
>>
>
> The same could be said about plenty of cognitively impaired humans.

You haven't read the essay have you?

> You're asserting that a fundamental divide exists between *all* humans
> and *all* nonhumans, I simply don't see any good evidence for that
> claim. You're welcome to provide me with some.

I did, you refuse to read it. You can spend hours typing long paragraphs
about you're being unjustly accused of hypocrisy and being a stuffed shirt
but I gave you one essay to read and you won't go near it. You recommended a
book and I went to the trouble of getting it from the Public Library and at
least attemped to read it..


[..]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:38:17 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Jun 19, 12:51 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.
>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. 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. 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.

I agree. I wrote something on this issue in haste about
a year ago, and if you have the time or the inclination, I
would like your thoughts on it

[start]
Well, I don't have much time, but here's my argument
against speciesism. To support his position the speciesist
must make his case on two moral grounds and on one
logical basis.

1) He must make the case that, while intolerance and
discrimination based on biological differences such as
race and sex is morally wrong, that same intolerance
and discrimination based on other biological differences
such as species is morally acceptable, because while it
must be agreed that animals lack certain capacities we
enjoy and take for granted, and that their lack of those
capacities can justify a different treatment toward them,
it doesn't justify a disrespectful treatment.

2) Another moral case he must also make is that, while
animals suffer the same pains we do and he makes use
of that human-like capacity to reduce his own by using
them as human models and tools to produce his drugs
and therapies, that human-like capacity to suffer his
pains carries less moral weight than his own and therefore
should be administered to animals to reduce it on that basis.

3) He must also argue on a logical basis that, while membership
to group x entitles members to hold rights against other
members of that group, membership to another group
automatically excludes them as rights holders against those
members in group x. Asserting "humans hold rights because
they are human and holds rights" is a circular argument where
one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wants to
reach, and that logical fallacy can never make his own claim
to rights valid or reject the proposition that "animals hold rights
because they are animals and hold rights."

Until the speciesist can make his case on those two moral grounds
and argue his own claim as a rights holder without begging the
question, his position remains invalid and "leads to a perverse moral
conclusion."
http://tinyurl.com/2jymvv

Rupert the dancing queer wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:36 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Rupert the dancing queer wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Yes, it did,
>>>> No, it didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Yes, it's perfectly coherent. You're just thick.
>>> I'm afraid that's
>> It's the truth.
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> By my account, when you say that animals are due equal
>>>> consideration, the burden is on you to prove it. Get
>>>> your ****ing faggot ass busy and do it. Or shut the
>>>> **** up.
>>> I'm not really interested in
>> You can't meet your burden of proof. Established.
>>
>
> I can't if the formal principle of justice

No such thing.


>>>>>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of
>>>>>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit.
>>>>> No, it's elementary that
>>>> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who
>>>> makes the assertion.
>>> As discussed already
>> As bullshitted already...
>>
>> You don't meet your burden of proof. You make an
>> assertion, you have the burden of supporting it. Always.
>>
>
> I have supported it.

You haven't, rupie. You have said that others must
disprove your assertion. That's a failure to support
on your part. It's shirking; whiffing off.


>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>>> Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth
>> Argumentum ad verecundiam.
>>
>
> Depends

No.


>> You're full of shit. There is no such axiomatic principle.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it.
>>> You're enjoying the
>> I'm enjoying kicking the shit out of you, boy. Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> Not a word.
>>> Very interesting.
>> No. Your fabrication of phony words is not interesting.
>>
>
> I didn't make it up.

You did. It's a phony word.


>>>>>> And, of course, you can't,
>>>>>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position.
>>>>> Silly clown.
>>>> Stupid effeminate ass-suck.
>>> I'm not in the least effeminate,
>> Yes, you are, you limp-wristed little queer.


Effeminate, dissipated little queer.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Thorough non sequitur. As ever.
>>> No,
>> Yes, it's non sequitur.