 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: [..] >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, I > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing for > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather > comical. It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and > failed to support it. > >> You prefer >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >> > > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting that people who eat meat aren't doing enough. Somehow you got the idea that you have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of the world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% who has gotten some wires crossed somewhere? <Insert predictable denial> |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no...
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... > > > > on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT > > > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > .. > >> >> >>>>>>The characteristic they lack is being human - > >> > <..> >>>>> > >> >> humans possess a characteristic that no other > >> >> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. > >> > > >> > 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, > >> > Ethics and Society > >> > > >> > Abstract of Keynote talk: > >> > > >> > Marc Bekoff > >> > > >> > PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA > >> > (Printable version, pdf) > >> > > >> > Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? > >> > > >> > Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes > >> > they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, > >> > and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows > >> > that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who > >> > have been shown to display empathy) > >> > >> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to > >> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species > >> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. > > > > Goalpost move. > > No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer > to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other > species? And he continues on with it.. > > And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in > > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)... > > > > "The case is as follows: > > > > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities > > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this > > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and > > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour > > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in > > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt > > in higher apes that they should be included." > > > > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. > > What's your point? Your "case" is squashed. That is clear. And as you state that "moral personhood" qualifies humans for full moral consideration and rights, then you must accept that non-human species' "moral personhood" qualifies them for full moral consideration and rights. You won't do that, because your "moral personhood" falls short. "The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality." ~Schopenhauer > >> There is > >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those > >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey > >> (food). > > > > 'Cognitive dissonance > > .. is irrelevant here. It is perfectly relevant, and you know it. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no... >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>> news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... >>> >>> on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT >>> >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human - >>>>> <..> >>>>> >>>>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other >>>>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. >>>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, >>>>> Ethics and Society >>>>> >>>>> Abstract of Keynote talk: >>>>> >>>>> Marc Bekoff >>>>> >>>>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA >>>>> (Printable version, pdf) >>>>> >>>>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? >>>>> >>>>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes >>>>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, >>>>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows >>>>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who >>>>> have been shown to display empathy) >>>> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to >>>> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species >>>> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. >>> Goalpost move. >> No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer >> to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other >> species? > > And he continues on with it.. No, ****. There was no goalpost move. Your original citation was crap, too - YOU HAVEN'T READ THE ARTICLE. The language of it is highly suspect as well - thoroughly unscientific cheerleading. "/We owe it/ to all individual animals to make every attempt to come to a greater understanding and appreciation for who they are..." [emphasis added] "/They deserve more/ and we can always do better." [emphasis added] Bekoff is quite obviously an "ar" radical who completely loses sight of science. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:15:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>><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 >>>>>>>news:gbj283do5psrofc470jotneqti5c0p4smq@4ax .com... >>>>>>>> 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. >> >> I challenge you to provide 5. > >You You lost, proving again that you are a liar. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:15:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:13:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>news:11ai83hp0fiuko4r0rdpsp34s4ajjhmqik@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:52:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:gbj283do5psrofc470jotneqti5c0p4smq@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> I challenge you to provide 5. >> >>You I don't respond to disingenuous "challenges" from time-wasting ****tards. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> pearl wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no... > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message > >>> news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... > >>> > >>> on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT > >>> > >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message > >>>> ... > >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote > >>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human - > >>>>> <..> >>>>> > >>>>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other > >>>>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. > > >>>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, > >>>>> Ethics and Society > >>>>> > >>>>> Abstract of Keynote talk: > >>>>> > >>>>> Marc Bekoff > >>>>> > >>>>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA > >>>>> (Printable version, pdf) > >>>>> > >>>>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? > >>>>> > >>>>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes > >>>>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, > >>>>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows > >>>>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who > >>>>> have been shown to display empathy) > > >>>> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to > >>>> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species > >>>> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. > > >>> Goalpost move. > > >> No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer > >> to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other > >> species? > > > > And he continues on with it.. > > No, ****. Why are you so obsessed with 'nether regions', ball? > There was no goalpost move. Yes there was. But if you insist on gnawing at that bone.. 27. The Horse that Helped Save a Fawn This year we had a coyote den along the edge of our field under an upturned aspen. It seems only one pup survived, and they stayed around our field as it is full of ground squirrels. In June, a doe gave birth to her fawn in our barnyard. The two coyotes, mother and son, zeroed in on the fawn. The doe put up a horrendous fight to protect her fawn by driving off the coyotes, but she was losing the battle because one coyote would divert her attention while the other would circle back to the barnyard. In moved our old mare to help. She stood guard over the fawn until the doe was able to drive off both coyotes. The doe seemed to accept Bonnie's attention to her fawn. When the fawn finally slipped through the fence to follow her mother, Bonnie nickered over the fence for a long time. ...' http://animalliberationfront.com/New.../HorseFawn.htm 53. Cat helps blind dog http://animalliberationfront.com/New...helpsblind.htm 145. Hippo Saves Antelope from Crocodile http://animalliberationfront.com/New...veAntelope.htm ... http://animalliberationfront.com/New...esism_Here.htm Dog Saves Boy From Tsunami, Pulls Indian Boy From Seaside Hut ... .... I felt sure that my child had died," the 24-year-old mother said. ... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in664271.shtml The Poodle (and Dog) Blog: Family dog saves child from a fall off roof. This story could easily have ended very tragically. If you've ever been around a toddler, you know they have no ... thepoodleanddogblog.typepad.com/the_poodle_and_dog_blog/2006/07/family_dog_save.html Untitled Document AMMAN, Jordan (UPI) -- A stray dog in northeastern Jordan saved a four-year-old girl from dying of stab wounds when it led a passerby to the wounded child, ... http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive...ray%20Dog.html PIT BULL VS. PERV | "It looked like a father and his child, but the girl was crying for her mommy and ... Fretes said of the dog: "He's a big hero. He saved that little girl." ... http://www.nypost.com/.../regionalne..._goldsmith.htm Dog saves owner, dies saving cat. Email; Print; October 18, 2006 - 10:26AM. She was always like a child to me. ... http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/...850962780.html MonkeyFilter | Dog Saves Baby Stray Dog Saves Abandoned Baby. Newsfilter, I know, but wtf - it's a modern day Romulus or Remus. ... I hope someone takes the child - AND the dog - home. ... monkeyfilter.com/link.php/8626 Stray dog saves life of abandoned baby - Pet Health - MSNBC.com A stray dog saved the life of a newborn baby after finding the abandoned infant in ... Poverty and the inability to care for the child are seen as the root ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7792445/ How Animals Save Us Everyday My dog saved my life, only to lose hers to a loaded scumbag with a ....... a mother to her choking child, a Pit Bull in Alaska who saved a child from a ... www.ithetwilight.com/createhope/ ..... http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&cl...Search &meta= > Your original citation was crap, too - YOU HAVEN'T READ > THE ARTICLE. I did read the article, and it was definitely not "crap". > The language of it is highly suspect as > well - thoroughly unscientific cheerleading. > > "/We owe it/ to all individual animals to make every > attempt to come to a greater understanding and > appreciation for who they are..." [emphasis added] > > "/They deserve more/ and we can always do better." > [emphasis added] > > Bekoff is quite obviously an "ar" radical who > completely loses sight of science. No. You are quite obviously an anti AR radical who doesn't know science even when it bites you in the ... . |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... >> pearl wrote: >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no... >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>> news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... >>>>> >>>>> on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT >>>>> >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human - >>>>>>> <..> >>>>> >>>>>>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other >>>>>>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. >>>>>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, >>>>>>> Ethics and Society >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abstract of Keynote talk: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marc Bekoff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA >>>>>>> (Printable version, pdf) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes >>>>>>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, >>>>>>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows >>>>>>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who >>>>>>> have been shown to display empathy) >>>>>> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to >>>>>> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species >>>>>> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. >>>>> Goalpost move. >>>> No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer >>>> to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other >>>> species? >>> And he continues on with it.. >> No, ****. > > Why are you s Why are you such a loathsome ****, lesley? >> There was no goalpost move. > > Yes there was. No, there was not. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> upert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i13g2000prf. googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive > >>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it > >>>>>> correctly above. > >>>>> See my reply to him. > >>>> It was shit. > >>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. > >>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. > >>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow > >>>> your own food > >>> This is true but > >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > > > You really are a bit weird > > non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. > Very sequitur, and very clearly true. You publicly obsess about my alleged "femininity" and engage in fantasies about my sexual preferences. For a bit of extra comic relief you tell me that I am immature. It really is quite bizarre. Not a single person who knows me finds me to be feminine, Ball. You find me feminine, or at least you like to say so, well, all right, fine, but why is the matter worthy of comment? Do you imagine that I or any other rational person cares whether or not you find me feminine? Is this your way of trying to insult me? Do you ever get tired of displaying such extraordinary ineptitude and idiocy in front of a large audience? Is this an example of how much more mature you are than me? Below you speculate about my sexual preferences. Well, obviously I would know what my sexual preferences are and you don't have any way of knowing. You could believe what I have told you, as any rational person would, but apart from that you really have no evidence that bears on the matter at all. (If you think you do, I suggest you discuss the matter with a psychiatrist). Why, exactly, would you give the matter of what my sexual preferences are a moment's thought, unless you want to have sex with me? You're utterly obsessed with putting people down because they are "queer". Is this your idea of what constitutes maturity? Different people like to do different things in bed, Ball. Children make a big song and dance about the issue while they are still maturing, still learning about sex and forming their own sexual identity. Adults just find it to be a normal and unremarkable fact about life. You've been a chronological adult for quite a while now. Don't you think it's time you caught up with other adults in other aspects of your development? I mean, if you have some homosexual feelings that are making you feel uncomfortable, there's really no need to feel uncomfortable, maybe you should talk over the matter with a counsellor. If that's not the problem, then seriously, why don't you just grow up? > > Yes, there is a "but". > > No, no "but", skirt-boy. Instead of addressing the point, snip it. Just what we've come to expect of good old Ball. > You want that cushy life of > ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing > lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing > animals for your food. > Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. And I would find it hard to give it up. So would you. I do more than most people, and certainly more than you, by way of voluntarily giving up luxuries for moral reasons. I abstain from animal products. I make an effort to reduce my contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. I volunteer time and a very substantial amount of money to political organizations and charities. I'm considering trying for a career in financial mathematics instead of academia, in order to avail myself of opportunities to alleviate suffering. If I manage to achieve a high salary in this way I will donate most of what comes my way towards the goal of alleviating suffering in poor countries. One of the reasons that I am hesitant about believing that I am morally required to lead a lifestyle in which no animals are killed to produce my food is that this might significantly reduce my opportunities to alleviate suffering in poor countries. If I became convinced that I am morally required to do everything I can to avoid eating food that was produced in ways that harm animals, then I would face a difficult personal dilemma because it would require strong moral resolve to go through with it. The same is true of you. You would have just as much difficulty as I would. The idea that I am "lazy" and lacking in moral resolve to make difficult personal decisions for the sake of pursuing moral goals is utterly absurd, especially coming from someone like you who basically makes no personal sacrifices whatsoever for the sake of morality. There are lots of reasons why I don't go further in reducing the amount of harm that is caused by the production of my food, but the main one is that I am genuinely unsure that it is what I am morally required to do. If I were convinced that it was what I was morally required to do, I would be struggling to overcome my self- interested tendencies and gather sufficient moral resolve to go through with it. I don't really think that it would be for you to comment on this personal struggle, when your own moral beliefs scarcely require you to do anything for anyone other than yourself and your immediate family. The bottom line is that I have made significant changes to my lifestyle and invested significant resources and effort into the goal of making the world a better place, above and beyond helping myself and my immediate family (which is a worthy goal too, of course). As far as I know, you have not done anything along these lines. The idea that I am more "lazy" and lacking in moral resolve than you is utterly absurd. > >> You prefer > >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > > > You think that I am committed to ideals > > Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a > couple of years now that you don't really believe the > "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber > in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's > pants. > The ideals I was referring to, which you snipped, I maintain that I do not believe in nor have I ever said anything which would commit me to them, be it for the purpose of getting into a guy's pants, or a girl's pants, or any purpose whatsoever. What you mean by "AR bullshit" I do not really know. > >>>> (except you don't do maths, > >>> This statement is incorrect, > >> It is correct. > > > Ah, the combination > > The statemebt is correct. > Well, I would certainly know whether it was correct or not. There are two possibilities: (1) I know that you're right, and for some reason I'm just desperately trying to convince people otherwise, or (2) I know that you're wrong, and I'm marvelling at your comical stupidity and lack of reality-testing skills. You seem to think it's (1). Or maybe you're just desperately hoping that. Much good may your belief do you. > >> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka > >> bothering people during their dinner), > > > We call businesses, > > You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. > Some of them don't want to talk to me. Some of them don't mind talking to me for a short while. Some of them are genuinely interested in what I have to say, it's a win-win situation. Most of them are perfectly polite with me. As a libertarian surely you must realize that this kind of activity is an inevitable part of any modern society. What do you want, a society without any marketing? That's a pretty hard vision for a libertarian to maintain. If you run a business with a publicly listed phone number you must expect to occasionally receive calls like this, and it's your choice how you deal with them. I'm not suggesting this is the most valuable contribution I could make to society, but it's a perfectly legitimate form of employment and there's nothing to be embarrassed about. It's something I'm doing temporarily until I get a better job. As I say, I really couldn't care less what you think about it. > >> and you do a > >> little animal "rights" passivism. > > > I do some activism > > You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's > all. No, it's not. But I'm sure you'll believe what you want to believe, so never mind. > That's passivism. > > >>>> preferring > >>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at > >>>> "ar".) > >> Exactly. > > > As always > > Right. > > >>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. > >>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? > >>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to > >>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he > >>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. > >>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. > >>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. > >>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) > >>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you > >>>> claim to believe. > >>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, > >> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not > >> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. > > > Why "must" I believe this? > > Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of > "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below > about your not really believing in "ar" at all. > So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing in this. Okay, now where exactly have I said that I believe in "ar" according to your definition, or that I believe in "ar" according to any definition? > >> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim > >> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must > >> believe in at least that one "right", > > > I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" > > Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in > all that you have said. > If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails that I am morally required not to buy any products which were produced in ways that harm animals, point it out. If I agree that it logically entails that, then I'll either retract the statement, change my behaviour, or admit that I'm not doing everything that my moral beliefs require of me. > >> but your behavior > >> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the > >> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. > > > There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in > > You're just a mess, skirt-boy. > Let's talk about the foundations of your libertarianism, Ball. Have you ever given any serious thought to the question of why government is justified at all? You told me "Some things don't lend themselves to markets." That would suggest that you're a consequentialist libertarian. But you've been very scornful of consequentialism in other contexts. And you've been trying to argue that immigration restrictions are consistent with libertarian principles. That's pretty hard to argue. Okay, so maybe we take the view that the people of the United States own equal shares in a corporation which has the right to control all the land in the United States. It's hard to see how this right could have arisen on a libertarian account, but suppose we accept that. So they have the right to vote to decide who gets let in. That presumably means they also have the right to vote about how other people will behave while they're on the land. So you can justify a non- libertarian democratic state in this way, or even a totalitarian state if it gets elected in. Perhaps you think that people do have the right to vote about how others in their country will be governed, but you hope for libertarian outcomes of the voting process. But what counts as a libertarian outcome? Why shouldn't immigration restrictions count as a non-libertarian outcome? It involves denying people the right to employ who they want, after all. I don't think you're very clear about the foundations for your libertarianism, or even about what libertarianism means. I agree that I am not very clear on the foundations for my views about animals, but at least I acknowledge that fact and am trying to improve the situation. I really don't think you're in any position to say that I'm a mess. I've made a post to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian discussing this issue before and you completely ignored it. > >>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. > >> So...we're clear on this, then. > > > It's false. > > It is true. > An assertion isn't an argument. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". > >>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates > >>>>>> those rights. > >>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial > >>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. > >>>> You are. > > QED Yes, it was demonstrandum, but it's yet to be demonstratum. And it never will be demonstratum, because it's false. > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > [..] > > >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > > > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why > > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, I > > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing for > > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as > > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather > > comical. > > It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards me as feminine. (2) I know that I am not queer. (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or queer. No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent that Ball does. What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to explain that, yet again. There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion of you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. If you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I really am quite surprised. > > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and > > failed to support it. > > >> You prefer > >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > > > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do > > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose > > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not > > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically > > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. > > Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting that > people who eat meat aren't doing enough. That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake of clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see why it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of these arguments. > Somehow you got the idea that you > have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of the > world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% who has > gotten some wires crossed somewhere? > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me where that's been done? If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words in defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly convincing. > <Insert predictable denial> |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 10, 4:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > > >> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled > >> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while > >> > you continue to hold this view. > > >> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > > > No. > > >> that is when > >> you're not busy being condescending. > > > Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > > condescending than me. > > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I may > be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm not > condescending. > Well, as far as I'm concerned that's complete rubbish. I really think you have incredible nerve, talking to me about condescension. As I say, you're a lot more condescending than me and you started being condescending towards me a long time before I started being condescending towards you. The distinction between condescendion and the sort of insults and character attacks you make towards me is a bit unclear to me, I'm afraid, I certainly don't understand why the former is worse. I really don't know what you find to complain about in my behaviour, anyway. I don't think you have any cause for complaint about the way I speak to you, certainly not in the context of the way you speak to me. Did you actually read the stuff from Rick that I was responding to? He was carrying on about how my usenet usage kills animals. I use solar panels. He's not making any claim that the electricity consumption for my computer kills animals. He's never once specified how my usenet usage kills animals. I made what I thought were plausible conjectures about what he thinks the mechanism is and he heaped yet more abuse and scorn on me, saying I was manufacturing "straw men". I really think that what I said was quite reasonable in the circumstances. The idea that I was the one who was not conducting himself in a reasonable manner is really quite absurd. > >> Incidentally there are a number of > >> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no > >> adequate response to. > > > No, you don't. > > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar questions > to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions aside with > evasive, dismissive remarks. > > > You won't know anything about my response until you > > agree to act like a decent human being. > > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to be > more "polite". Get a bit more specific about how you want me to modify my behaviour, and I'll consider it. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > > "Rupert" > wrote > >> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > [..] > > >>> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled > >>> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while > >>> > you continue to hold this view. > > >>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > > >> No. > > >>> that is when > >>> you're not busy being condescending. > > >> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >> condescending than me. > > > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being > > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I > > may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm > > not condescending. > > If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you > see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he > http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 > You know, Ball, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try to put people down for the way they look. > >>> Incidentally there are a number of > >>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no > >>> adequate response to. > > >> No, you don't. > > > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > > questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions > > aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. > > >> You won't know anything about my response until you > >> agree to act like a decent human being. > > > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to > > be more "polite". > > You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, > and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant > little bitch.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. Your behaviour is quite the most extraordinarily despicable and contemptible behaviour I have ever encountered, but I have learned to appreciate its comic side. Dutch is the least of the offenders, but he certainly has no cause to congratulate himself on how polite he has been with me. If he wants to "get somewhere", he should try to make a compelling case for his point of view. Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. The idea that anyone here has a legitimate cause for complaint because I occasionally express the view that I've acquired a somewhat better understanding of moral philosophy than others here, in the context of the sort of behaviour I've had to put up with, is a complete absurdity. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> upert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive >>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it >>>>>>>> correctly above. >>>>>>> See my reply to him. >>>>>> It was shit. >>>>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. >>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. >>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow >>>>>> your own food >>>>> This is true but >>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >>> You really are a bit weird >> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. >> > > Very sequitur, That's not even a sentence, skirt boy. >>> Yes, there is a "but". >> No, no "but", skirt-boy. > > Instead of addressing the point No point. >> You want that cushy life of >> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing >> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing >> animals for your food. >> > > Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours does. >>>> You prefer >>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >>> You think that I am committed to ideals >> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a >> couple of years now that you don't really believe the >> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber >> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's >> pants. >> > > The ideals I was referring to, "ar". It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. >>>>>> (except you don't do maths, >>>>> This statement is incorrect, >>>> It is correct. >>> Ah, the combination >> The statemebt is correct. >> > > Well, I would certainly The statement is correct. >>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka >>>> bothering people during their dinner), >>> We call businesses, >> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. >> > > Some of them don't want to talk to me. NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech. >>>> and you do a >>>> little animal "rights" passivism. >>> I do some activism >> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's >> all. > > No, it's not. Yes, it's all. >> That's passivism. >> >>>>>> preferring >>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at >>>>>> "ar".) >>>> Exactly. >>> As always >> Right. >> >>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. >>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? >>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to >>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he >>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. >>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. >>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. >>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) >>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you >>>>>> claim to believe. >>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, >>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not >>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. >>> Why "must" I believe this? >> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of >> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below >> about your not really believing in "ar" at all. >> > > So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing > in this. Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar". >>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim >>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must >>>> believe in at least that one "right", >>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" >> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in >> all that you have said. >> > > If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails > that I am morally required You've professed belief in "ar", and that requires you not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease. >>>> but your behavior >>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the >>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. >>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in >> You're just a mess, skirt-boy. >> > > Let's talk about the foundations of You're just a total mess, skirt-boy. >>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. >>>> So...we're clear on this, then. >>> It's false. >> It is true. >> > > An assertion isn't an argument. The truth has already been established. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". >>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates >>>>>>>> those rights. >>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial >>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. >>>>>> You are. >> QED |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> [..] >>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled >>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while >>>>>> you continue to hold this view. >>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >>>> No. >>>>> that is when >>>>> you're not busy being condescending. >>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >>>> condescending than me. >>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would >>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being >>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I >>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm >>> not condescending. >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 >> > > You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > to put people down for the way they look. You are the effete, simpering queer you appear. >>>>> Incidentally there are a number of >>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no >>>>> adequate response to. >>>> No, you don't. >>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions >>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. >>>> You won't know anything about my response until you >>>> agree to act like a decent human being. >>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to >>> be more "polite". >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant >> little bitch. > > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable. > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. No. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> upert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i13g2000pr f.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive > >>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it > >>>>>>>> correctly above. > >>>>>>> See my reply to him. > >>>>>> It was shit. > >>>>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. > >>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. > >>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow > >>>>>> your own food > >>>>> This is true but > >>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > >>> You really are a bit weird > >> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. > > > Very sequitur, > > That's not even a sentence, skirt boy. > Of course not, since you snipped most of the sentence. It's a construction based on a mixture of English and Latin. It would probably have been better to say "sequitur very much". "Sequitur" means "it follows". Anyway, apparently you have nothing to say in response to my suggestion that you stop acting like a twelve-year-old. No big surprise there, I guess. > >>> Yes, there is a "but". > >> No, no "but", skirt-boy. > > > Instead of addressing the point > > No point. > There was a point, actually. You apparently lack the mental capacity to grasp it. Never mind. > >> You want that cushy life of > >> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing > >> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing > >> animals for your food. > > > Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. > > Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours > does. > So it's been said many times, but I've yet to see a decent explanation of how. > >>>> You prefer > >>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > >>> You think that I am committed to ideals > >> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a > >> couple of years now that you don't really believe the > >> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber > >> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's > >> pants. > > > The ideals I was referring to, > > "ar". You just keep mindlessly uttering those two letters over and over again as though they mean something. If you're going to maintain that I've said something which entails that some of my behaviour is wrong, you're going to have to demonstrate that by engaging with what I actually wrote. I've never used the term "AR". > It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's > just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. > *What* do you I say in order to get laid by some other skirt-boy, you stupid homophobic pitiful twelve-year-old? > >>>>>> (except you don't do maths, > >>>>> This statement is incorrect, > >>>> It is correct. > >>> Ah, the combination > >> The statemebt is correct. > > > Well, I would certainly > > The statement is correct. > You know, one of these days you really should have a chat with someone qualified about what the warning signs of psychosis actually are. I think you could benefit from learning a bit more about psychosis. > >>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka > >>>> bothering people during their dinner), > >>> We call businesses, > >> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. > > > Some of them don't want to talk to me. > > NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech. > Ball, you don't know anything about my job. Most of the people I ring are perfectly happy to talk to me. I interact with them in a perfectly reasonable way. At the moment I'm promoting an exhibition which doesn't cost any money, and which quite a few people might reasonably want to go to. I'm not "leeching" anyone. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if, at some earlier stage in your life, taking a telemarketing job had proved to be a convenient temporary way of earning some money, you would have had a principled objection to it? If you had just finished your Ph.D., you were short of money, and a telemarketing job was the best thing on offer in the short term, of course you would take it. What did you do when you finished your Ph.D., anyway? Did you walk straight into the job of your dreams? You try so hard, don't you, Ball, to find ways that you can put me down. I think that all your attempts to do so are a joke. But you apparently have a very strong urge to keep going. I wonder what you think you achieve. > >>>> and you do a > >>>> little animal "rights" passivism. > >>> I do some activism > >> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's > >> all. > > > No, it's not. > > Yes, it's all. > Sometimes, if you hold a belief without evidential foundation, lack insight into the fact that it lacks evidential foundation, and nothing can induce you to entertain the slightest doubt about it, that's a warning sign that you're in the prodrome of a psychosis. It's certainly not a sign of particularly good mental health. > > > > > >> That's passivism. > > >>>>>> preferring > >>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at > >>>>>> "ar".) > >>>> Exactly. > >>> As always > >> Right. > > >>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. > >>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? > >>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to > >>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he > >>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. > >>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. > >>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. > >>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) > >>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you > >>>>>> claim to believe. > >>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, > >>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not > >>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. > >>> Why "must" I believe this? > >> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of > >> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below > >> about your not really believing in "ar" at all. > > > So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing > > in this. > > Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar". > Could you please answer the question which you snipped, instead of just repeating an unargued assertion? > >>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim > >>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must > >>>> believe in at least that one "right", > >>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" > >> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in > >> all that you have said. > > > If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails > > that I am morally required > > You've professed belief in "ar", Whatever that means. Where? Where have I professed such a belief? > and that requires you > not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease. > > >>>> but your behavior > >>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the > >>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. > >>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in > >> You're just a mess, skirt-boy. > > > Let's talk about the foundations of > > You're just a total mess, skirt-boy. > Whatever. Why on earth do you bother, if you feel no urge to engage with what I say? What do you imagine you are achieving? > >>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. > >>>> So...we're clear on this, then. > >>> It's false. > >> It is true. > > > An assertion isn't an argument. > > The truth has already been established. > You've never stated which moral belief I have expressed a commitment to which I don't act in accordance with. All you can do is say "AR". This seems to be a catch-all for any stance on the moral status of animals which is too critical of the status quo for your taste. You haven't established anything. You want to just keep mindlessly asserting that you have, well, fine, what do I care? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". > >>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates > >>>>>>>> those rights. > >>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial > >>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. > >>>>>> You are. > >> QED- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: > >>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>> [..] > >>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled > >>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while > >>>>>> you continue to hold this view. > >>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > >>>> No. > >>>>> that is when > >>>>> you're not busy being condescending. > >>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >>>> condescending than me. > >>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > >>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being > >>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I > >>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm > >>> not condescending. > >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you > >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he > >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 > > > You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > > to put people down for the way they look. > > You are the effete, simpering queer you appear. > So this is an actual claim that I am homosexual, is it? You really have convinced yourself of this one? > > > > > >>>>> Incidentally there are a number of > >>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no > >>>>> adequate response to. > >>>> No, you don't. > >>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > >>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions > >>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. > >>>> You won't know anything about my response until you > >>>> agree to act like a decent human being. > >>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to > >>> be more "polite". > >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, > >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant > >> little bitch. > > > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. > > You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable. > It is not reasonable. I have given you no cause to be rude in the least. It started from my very first post, based on the conjecture that I was a vegan. All of you have behaved in a way that any decent person would be thoroughly ashamed of, especially you. You are not achieving anything except degrading yourself. Your views about your own degeneracy are an interesting part of your pathology. > > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. > > No. You think that you are entitled to behave in the way you do, and I am the one who is arrogant? You people are a disgrace to the positions you represent. No civilized person who reads these conversations will look on you with anything other than the utmost contempt. And you try to claim that I am the one whose behaviour is somehow at fault. You can say what you like, but it is a farce and any reasonable person will recognize it as such. I know better than to expect anything better from people like you. But when you ludicrously try to suggest that you have some cause for complaint about my behaviour, I bother to state the facts. You can say what you like about me, Ball, but at the end of the day I will still be me and you will still be you. And if you don't feel inclined to do something to improve yourself, well, that's really pretty sad. But it's not my problem. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >> >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, I >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing for >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather >> > comical. >> >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) >> > > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: > > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards me > as feminine. > (2) I know that I am not queer. > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or queer. > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent > that Ball does. It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the whole point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those things to get up your nose, and succeeding. > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to > explain that, yet again. I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's watching here. > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion of > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. If > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I > really am quite surprised. He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order to evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and annoying, and it works perfectly. >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and >> > failed to support it. >> >> >> You prefer >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >> >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. >> >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting >> that >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough. > > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake of > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see why > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of these > arguments. That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I reckon that you don't even know you're doing it. >> Somehow you got the idea that you >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of >> the >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% who >> has >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere? >> > > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me where > that's been done? It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The trouble is not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way you think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking from conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a moment after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that? If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words in > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly > convincing. It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to reason. You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and not half-ways smart enough. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jul 10, 4:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled >> >> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while >> >> > you continue to hold this view. >> >> >> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >> >> > No. >> >> >> that is when >> >> you're not busy being condescending. >> >> > Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >> > condescending than me. >> >> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would >> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being >> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I >> may >> be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm not >> condescending. >> > > Well, as far as I'm concerned that's complete rubbish. I really think > you have incredible nerve, talking to me about condescension. As I > say, you're a lot more condescending than me and you started being > condescending towards me a long time before I started being > condescending towards you. The distinction between condescendion and > the sort of insults and character attacks you make towards me is a bit > unclear to me, I'm afraid, I certainly don't understand why the former > is worse. I really don't know what you find to complain about in my > behaviour, anyway. I don't think you have any cause for complaint > about the way I speak to you, certainly not in the context of the way > you speak to me. Did you actually read the stuff from Rick that I was > responding to? He was carrying on about how my usenet usage kills > animals. I use solar panels. He's not making any claim that the > electricity consumption for my computer kills animals. He's never once > specified how my usenet usage kills animals. I made what I thought > were plausible conjectures about what he thinks the mechanism is and > he heaped yet more abuse and scorn on me, saying I was manufacturing > "straw men". I really think that what I said was quite reasonable in > the circumstances. The idea that I was the one who was not conducting > himself in a reasonable manner is really quite absurd. Don't talk to him if you don't get anything useful out of it. Ever think of that? >> >> Incidentally there are a number of >> >> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no >> >> adequate response to. >> >> > No, you don't. >> >> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >> questions >> to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions aside with >> evasive, dismissive remarks. >> >> > You won't know anything about my response until you >> > agree to act like a decent human being. >> >> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to be >> more "polite". > > Get a bit more specific about how you want me to modify my behaviour, > and I'll consider it. I doubt that you can, it's just your personality. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >> > "Rupert" > wrote >> >> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > [..] >> >> >>> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not >> >>> > entitled >> >>> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you >> >>> > while >> >>> > you continue to hold this view. >> >> >>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >> >> >> No. >> >> >>> that is when >> >>> you're not busy being condescending. >> >> >> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >> >> condescending than me. >> >> > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would >> > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am >> > being >> > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I >> > may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm >> > not condescending. >> >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 >> > > You know, Ball, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > to put people down for the way they look. > >> >>> Incidentally there are a number of >> >>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have >> >>> no >> >>> adequate response to. >> >> >> No, you don't. >> >> > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >> > questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions >> > aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. >> >> >> You won't know anything about my response until you >> >> agree to act like a decent human being. >> >> > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to >> > be more "polite". >> >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant >> little bitch.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. Your behaviour > is quite the most extraordinarily despicable and contemptible > behaviour I have ever encountered, but I have learned to appreciate > its comic side. Dutch is the least of the offenders, but he certainly > has no cause to congratulate himself on how polite he has been with > me. If he wants to "get somewhere", he should try to make a compelling > case for his point of view. > > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. > The idea that anyone here has a legitimate cause for complaint because > I occasionally express the view that I've acquired a somewhat better > understanding of moral philosophy than others here, in the context of > the sort of behaviour I've had to put up with, is a complete > absurdity. > You don't understand the culture of usenet, and specifically this newsgroup. I don't care how many books you've read, you don't come new into a group and expect to be able to act all superior the way you do and not get abuse heaped on you. And yes you do. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 4:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> [..] > > >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > > >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why > >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, I > >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing for > >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as > >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather > >> > comical. > > >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) > > > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to > > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature > > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: > > > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards me > > as feminine. > > (2) I know that I am not queer. > > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or queer. > > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other > > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent > > that Ball does. > > It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the whole > point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those things > to get up your nose, and succeeding. > There's an element of irritation, sure, although there's an element of entertainment as well. Okay, so I find it irritating when grown men act like children, so Ball acts like a child in order to irritate me, and I respond by pointing out that he's acting like a child. Okay, fine. I mean, I could interpret pretty much everything he says to me along these lines. It's all got about the same level of credibility, in my view. > > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a > > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to > > explain that, yet again. > > I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's > watching here. > Well, okay, fine. It depends on your taste in humour, I guess. My cousin is a *******, my friend Mark Pearson, the director of Animal Liberation NSW, is ***, I had a friend once called Nick who was ***. I happen to think these people are entitled to just as much respect as any other member of the community and that the discrimination that they face is a serious issue. So certainly Ball's behaviour has entertainment value, but there's also a fairly strong element of disgust. I don't think that decent people use "queer" as an insult, even if they're just being clowns. > > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion of > > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. If > > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I > > really am quite surprised. > > He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order to > evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and annoying, and > it works perfectly. He's certainly got a bit of education. As far as intelligence goes, I've known people who have shown more signs of intelligence. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one. I mean, basically what you're doing here is making the conjecture that he is a troll. Somehow, he finds it entertaining when he says stupid things and I take the trouble to explain how extraordinarily stupid he's being. Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. I don't really have a problem with that. Hey, maybe you're all just trolling all the time and don't really believe any of the things you say. I certainly quite often have the experience of marvelling how anyone could talk such nonsense. And apparently the feeling is mutual. Bit of a problem, really. I choose to assume good faith and address everything people say as though they meant it seriously. > > > > > > >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and > >> > failed to support it. > > >> >> You prefer > >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > > >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do > >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose > >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not > >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically > >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. > > >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting > >> that > >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough. > > > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time > > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal > > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not > > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake of > > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed > > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see why > > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern > > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of > > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at > > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the > > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of these > > arguments. > > That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I reckon > that you don't even know you're doing it. > Well, you're right, I don't understand why it is a "verbal tap-dance". Seemed like a good faith attempt at sensible discussion to me. Maybe you could enlighten me what was wrong with it. > >> Somehow you got the idea that you > >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of > >> the > >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% who > >> has > >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere? > > > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to > > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me where > > that's been done? > > It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The trouble is > not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way you > think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking from > conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the > significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a moment > after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that? > Well, if that's your view of the situation maybe you shouldn't bother. By the way, we were talking earlier about "condescension". Do you really have the idea that expressing these views about me is not condescending? I'm not objecting, I just have a hard time seeing how you can feel free to express such views about me and yet complain about my behaviour. I mean, when I say that there are some areas of moral philosophy which I understand a bit better than you, I'm not expressing a derogatory opinion about you. There's no shame in being relatively new to some areas of moral philosophy. I do have some negative views about some aspects of your behaviour, sure, you don't seem to mind when I express those. But for some reason you don't like it when I express the view that I know a bit more than you about some areas of moral philosophy. You say you think it's bullshit, okay, well fine, presumably you regard the opinions I hold about you which actually are derogatory as bullshit as well, and yet those opinions don't bother you. I mean, I've no desire to annoy anyone unnecessarily, but I'm not very clear on what you regard as rules of reasonable conduct. I just don't see where you get the idea that my conduct is so much more offensive than yours. > If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and > > > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these > > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words in > > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all > > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly > > convincing. > > It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to > reason. When I say there are some areas of moral philosophy I know a bit more about than you, I'm being condescending, but when you say I'm invulnerable to reason, you're being reasonable. Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's invulnerable to reason, is there now? > You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying > makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and not > half-ways smart enough.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: > >> > "Rupert" > wrote > >> >> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> > [..] > > >> >>> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not > >> >>> > entitled > >> >>> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you > >> >>> > while > >> >>> > you continue to hold this view. > > >> >>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > > >> >> No. > > >> >>> that is when > >> >>> you're not busy being condescending. > > >> >> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >> >> condescending than me. > > >> > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > >> > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am > >> > being > >> > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I > >> > may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm > >> > not condescending. > > >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you > >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he > >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 > > > You know, Ball, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > > to put people down for the way they look. > > >> >>> Incidentally there are a number of > >> >>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have > >> >>> no > >> >>> adequate response to. > > >> >> No, you don't. > > >> > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > >> > questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions > >> > aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. > > >> >> You won't know anything about my response until you > >> >> agree to act like a decent human being. > > >> > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to > >> > be more "polite". > > >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, > >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant > >> little bitch.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. Your behaviour > > is quite the most extraordinarily despicable and contemptible > > behaviour I have ever encountered, but I have learned to appreciate > > its comic side. Dutch is the least of the offenders, but he certainly > > has no cause to congratulate himself on how polite he has been with > > me. If he wants to "get somewhere", he should try to make a compelling > > case for his point of view. > > > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. > > The idea that anyone here has a legitimate cause for complaint because > > I occasionally express the view that I've acquired a somewhat better > > understanding of moral philosophy than others here, in the context of > > the sort of behaviour I've had to put up with, is a complete > > absurdity. > > You don't understand the culture of usenet, and specifically this newsgroup. > I don't care how many books you've read, you don't come new into a group and > expect to be able to act all superior the way you do and not get abuse > heaped on you. And yes you do. The fact that I regard myself as quite well-read in moral philosophy did not come up with for a while, and it was in response to Ball's attempt to denigrate my intellectual credentials. I got totally irrational abuse right from my very first post. In reply to my very first post, Rick conjectured that I was a vegan and started abusing me. The abuse I get is because I'm vegan. Simple as that. It's bigotry. I use quite a lot of newsgroups and forums on the Internet, including another forum about animal ethics in which a diversity of opinions are represented. I get on very well with everyone everywhere else but here. I have civilized exchanges of views with people based on mutual respect, where each person finds what the other has to say quite interesting. No-one regards me as "condescending", or "arrogant", or putting on airs of "superiority". No-one calls me a "pseudo- intellectual" or a "stuffed shirted loser". No-one takes the view that I am "immune to reason". You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me with interesting information, and given me food for thought. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 5:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 4:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> [..] > > >> >> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled > >> >> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while > >> >> > you continue to hold this view. > > >> >> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > > >> > No. > > >> >> that is when > >> >> you're not busy being condescending. > > >> > Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >> > condescending than me. > > >> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > >> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being > >> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I > >> may > >> be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm not > >> condescending. > > > Well, as far as I'm concerned that's complete rubbish. I really think > > you have incredible nerve, talking to me about condescension. As I > > say, you're a lot more condescending than me and you started being > > condescending towards me a long time before I started being > > condescending towards you. The distinction between condescendion and > > the sort of insults and character attacks you make towards me is a bit > > unclear to me, I'm afraid, I certainly don't understand why the former > > is worse. I really don't know what you find to complain about in my > > behaviour, anyway. I don't think you have any cause for complaint > > about the way I speak to you, certainly not in the context of the way > > you speak to me. Did you actually read the stuff from Rick that I was > > responding to? He was carrying on about how my usenet usage kills > > animals. I use solar panels. He's not making any claim that the > > electricity consumption for my computer kills animals. He's never once > > specified how my usenet usage kills animals. I made what I thought > > were plausible conjectures about what he thinks the mechanism is and > > he heaped yet more abuse and scorn on me, saying I was manufacturing > > "straw men". I really think that what I said was quite reasonable in > > the circumstances. The idea that I was the one who was not conducting > > himself in a reasonable manner is really quite absurd. > > Don't talk to him if you don't get anything useful out of it. Ever think of > that? > Yeah, sure, that's a good idea. I don't initiate conversations with him any more. He initiated the conversation on this occasion, I hadn't spoken with him for a while. Sometimes when someone heaps unjustified abuse on you you feel inclined to point out how stupid they're being. We don't make much progress on this newsgroup here, generally. Maybe there's not much point. Sometimes I think there's hope. It's just a habit I have, participating here. I occasionally read something someone says and get the urge to respond, and when people criticize or insult me I get the urge to defend myself. I'd probably be better off trying to publish stuff in the field. > > > > > >> >> Incidentally there are a number of > >> >> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no > >> >> adequate response to. > > >> > No, you don't. > > >> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > >> questions > >> to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions aside with > >> evasive, dismissive remarks. > > >> > You won't know anything about my response until you > >> > agree to act like a decent human being. > > >> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to be > >> more "polite". > > > Get a bit more specific about how you want me to modify my behaviour, > > and I'll consider it. > > I doubt that you can, it's just your personality. Well, it's up to you. I mean, if you really are prepared to act in a way that I regard as reasonable then I don't mind making an effort not to annoy you. We can try to work something out if you like. Or not. It's up to you. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jul 11, 4:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >> >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >> >> >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why >> >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, >> >> > I >> >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing >> >> > for >> >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as >> >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather >> >> > comical. >> >> >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) >> >> > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to >> > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature >> > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: >> >> > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards me >> > as feminine. >> > (2) I know that I am not queer. >> > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or queer. >> > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other >> > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent >> > that Ball does. >> >> It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the >> whole >> point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those >> things >> to get up your nose, and succeeding. >> > > There's an element of irritation, sure, although there's an element of > entertainment as well. Okay, so I find it irritating when grown men > act like children, so Ball acts like a child in order to irritate me, > and I respond by pointing out that he's acting like a child. Okay, > fine. I mean, I could interpret pretty much everything he says to me > along these lines. It's all got about the same level of credibility, > in my view. > >> > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a >> > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to >> > explain that, yet again. >> >> I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's >> watching here. >> > > Well, okay, fine. It depends on your taste in humour, I guess. My > cousin is a *******, my friend Mark Pearson, the director of Animal > Liberation NSW, is ***, I had a friend once called Nick who was ***. I > happen to think these people are entitled to just as much respect as > any other member of the community and that the discrimination that > they face is a serious issue. So certainly Ball's behaviour has > entertainment value, but there's also a fairly strong element of > disgust. I don't think that decent people use "queer" as an insult, > even if they're just being clowns. > >> > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion of >> > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. If >> > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I >> > really am quite surprised. >> >> He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order to >> evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and annoying, >> and >> it works perfectly. > > He's certainly got a bit of education. As far as intelligence goes, > I've known people who have shown more signs of intelligence. We'll > probably have to agree to disagree on that one. > > I mean, basically what you're doing here is making the conjecture that > he is a troll. Somehow, he finds it entertaining when he says stupid > things and I take the trouble to explain how extraordinarily stupid > he's being. Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. I don't really have a > problem with that. Hey, maybe you're all just trolling all the time > and don't really believe any of the things you say. I certainly quite > often have the experience of marvelling how anyone could talk such > nonsense. And apparently the feeling is mutual. Bit of a problem, > really. I choose to assume good faith and address everything people > say as though they meant it seriously. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and >> >> > failed to support it. >> >> >> >> You prefer >> >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >> >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >> >> >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do >> >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose >> >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not >> >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically >> >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. >> >> >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting >> >> that >> >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough. >> >> > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time >> > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal >> > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not >> > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake of >> > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed >> > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see why >> > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern >> > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of >> > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at >> > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the >> > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of these >> > arguments. >> >> That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I reckon >> that you don't even know you're doing it. >> > > Well, you're right, I don't understand why it is a "verbal tap-dance". > Seemed like a good faith attempt at sensible discussion to me. Maybe > you could enlighten me what was wrong with it. > >> >> Somehow you got the idea that you >> >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of >> >> the >> >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% >> >> who >> >> has >> >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere? >> >> > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to >> > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me where >> > that's been done? >> >> It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The trouble >> is >> not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way you >> think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking >> from >> conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the >> significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a moment >> after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that? >> > > Well, if that's your view of the situation maybe you shouldn't > bother. > > By the way, we were talking earlier about "condescension". Do you > really have the idea that expressing these views about me is not > condescending? I'm just trying to analyze what I'm seeing. > I'm not objecting, I just have a hard time seeing how > you can feel free to express such views about me and yet complain > about my behaviour. I mean, when I say that there are some areas of > moral philosophy which I understand a bit better than you, I'm not > expressing a derogatory opinion about you. There's no shame in being > relatively new to some areas of moral philosophy. I do have some > negative views about some aspects of your behaviour, sure, you don't > seem to mind when I express those. But for some reason you don't like > it when I express the view that I know a bit more than you about some > areas of moral philosophy. I don't want to hear about it. If you know a lot about moral philosophy then prove it by expressing an interesting or profound idea that I can relate to, that makes sense, rings true. That's what real knowledge allows you to do, not drop names and names of theories you've read about. Most of what you have said in the group doesn't ring true at all, it's a bunch theoretical bullshit that sounds like it was cooked up in some uni coffeee shop. > You say you think it's bullshit, okay, well > fine, presumably you regard the opinions I hold about you which > actually are derogatory as bullshit as well, and yet those opinions > don't bother you. I mean, I've no desire to annoy anyone > unnecessarily, but I'm not very clear on what you regard as rules of > reasonable conduct. I just don't see where you get the idea that my > conduct is so much more offensive than yours. It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am too in my own way, I also get vebal abuse. > >> If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and >> >> > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these >> > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words in >> > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all >> > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly >> > convincing. >> >> It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to >> reason. > > When I say there are some areas of moral philosophy I know a bit more > about than you, I'm being condescending, but when you say I'm > invulnerable to reason, you're being reasonable. Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said previously it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it. You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when I challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices". That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline. > Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not > bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's > invulnerable to reason, is there now? There's always verbal abuse. > >> You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying >> makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and not >> half-ways smart enough.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jul 11, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> Dutch wrote: >> >> > "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> > [..] >> >> >> >>> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not >> >> >>> > entitled >> >> >>> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you >> >> >>> > while >> >> >>> > you continue to hold this view. >> >> >> >>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >> >> >> >> No. >> >> >> >>> that is when >> >> >>> you're not busy being condescending. >> >> >> >> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >> >> >> condescending than me. >> >> >> > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I >> >> > would >> >> > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am >> >> > being >> >> > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. >> >> > I >> >> > may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but >> >> > I'm >> >> > not condescending. >> >> >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you >> >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 >> >> > You know, Ball, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to >> > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try >> > to put people down for the way they look. >> >> >> >>> Incidentally there are a number of >> >> >>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you >> >> >>> have >> >> >>> no >> >> >>> adequate response to. >> >> >> >> No, you don't. >> >> >> > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >> >> > questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions >> >> > aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. >> >> >> >> You won't know anything about my response until you >> >> >> agree to act like a decent human being. >> >> >> > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt >> >> > to >> >> > be more "polite". >> >> >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, >> >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant >> >> little bitch.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. Your behaviour >> > is quite the most extraordinarily despicable and contemptible >> > behaviour I have ever encountered, but I have learned to appreciate >> > its comic side. Dutch is the least of the offenders, but he certainly >> > has no cause to congratulate himself on how polite he has been with >> > me. If he wants to "get somewhere", he should try to make a compelling >> > case for his point of view. >> >> > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. >> > The idea that anyone here has a legitimate cause for complaint because >> > I occasionally express the view that I've acquired a somewhat better >> > understanding of moral philosophy than others here, in the context of >> > the sort of behaviour I've had to put up with, is a complete >> > absurdity. >> >> You don't understand the culture of usenet, and specifically this >> newsgroup. >> I don't care how many books you've read, you don't come new into a group >> and >> expect to be able to act all superior the way you do and not get abuse >> heaped on you. And yes you do. > > The fact that I regard myself as quite well-read in moral philosophy > did not come up with for a while, and it was in response to Ball's > attempt to denigrate my intellectual credentials. I got totally > irrational abuse right from my very first post. In reply to my very > first post, Rick conjectured that I was a vegan and started abusing > me. The abuse I get is because I'm vegan. Simple as that. It's > bigotry. > > I use quite a lot of newsgroups and forums on the Internet, including > another forum about animal ethics in which a diversity of opinions are > represented. I get on very well with everyone everywhere else but > here. I have civilized exchanges of views with people based on mutual > respect, where each person finds what the other has to say quite > interesting. No-one regards me as "condescending", or "arrogant", or > putting on airs of "superiority". No-one calls me a "pseudo- > intellectual" or a "stuffed shirted loser". No-one takes the view that > I am "immune to reason". > > You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not > with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not > very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very > decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments > either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me > with interesting information, and given me food for thought. Doesn't that sound a little contradictory to you? For all your alleged superior reasoning, powers of articulation and genuine intellectual abilities I haven't heard one thing memorable from you. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jul 11, 5:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not >> >> >> > entitled >> >> >> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you >> >> >> > while >> >> >> > you continue to hold this view. >> >> >> >> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >> >> >> > No. >> >> >> >> that is when >> >> >> you're not busy being condescending. >> >> >> > Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >> >> > condescending than me. >> >> >> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I >> >> would >> >> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am >> >> being >> >> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I >> >> may >> >> be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm not >> >> condescending. >> >> > Well, as far as I'm concerned that's complete rubbish. I really think >> > you have incredible nerve, talking to me about condescension. As I >> > say, you're a lot more condescending than me and you started being >> > condescending towards me a long time before I started being >> > condescending towards you. The distinction between condescendion and >> > the sort of insults and character attacks you make towards me is a bit >> > unclear to me, I'm afraid, I certainly don't understand why the former >> > is worse. I really don't know what you find to complain about in my >> > behaviour, anyway. I don't think you have any cause for complaint >> > about the way I speak to you, certainly not in the context of the way >> > you speak to me. Did you actually read the stuff from Rick that I was >> > responding to? He was carrying on about how my usenet usage kills >> > animals. I use solar panels. He's not making any claim that the >> > electricity consumption for my computer kills animals. He's never once >> > specified how my usenet usage kills animals. I made what I thought >> > were plausible conjectures about what he thinks the mechanism is and >> > he heaped yet more abuse and scorn on me, saying I was manufacturing >> > "straw men". I really think that what I said was quite reasonable in >> > the circumstances. The idea that I was the one who was not conducting >> > himself in a reasonable manner is really quite absurd. >> >> Don't talk to him if you don't get anything useful out of it. Ever think >> of >> that? >> > > Yeah, sure, that's a good idea. I don't initiate conversations with > him any more. He initiated the conversation on this occasion, I hadn't > spoken with him for a while. Sometimes when someone heaps unjustified > abuse on you you feel inclined to point out how stupid they're being. > > We don't make much progress on this newsgroup here, generally. Maybe > there's not much point. Sometimes I think there's hope. It's just a > habit I have, participating here. I occasionally read something > someone says and get the urge to respond, and when people criticize or > insult me I get the urge to defend myself. I'd probably be better off > trying to publish stuff in the field. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Incidentally there are a number of >> >> >> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have >> >> >> no >> >> >> adequate response to. >> >> >> > No, you don't. >> >> >> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >> >> questions >> >> to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions aside with >> >> evasive, dismissive remarks. >> >> >> > You won't know anything about my response until you >> >> > agree to act like a decent human being. >> >> >> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to >> >> be >> >> more "polite". >> >> > Get a bit more specific about how you want me to modify my behaviour, >> > and I'll consider it. >> >> I doubt that you can, it's just your personality. > > Well, it's up to you. I mean, if you really are prepared to act in a > way that I regard as reasonable then I don't mind making an effort not > to annoy you. We can try to work something out if you like. Or not. > It's up to you. OK with me. The first thing I want you to start doing is stop and consider carefully when I tell you something, don't just launch into denials. If what I'm saying isn't worth considering then why are we bothering? The issue I will probably address soon is your habit of moving the goalposts. Also, grow some thick skin, really, just focus on the relevant stuff, the rest is immaterial. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > On Jul 11, 4:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > groups.com... > > >> > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> >> [..] > > >> >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >> >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > > >> >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? Why > >> >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I mean, > >> >> > I > >> >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing > >> >> > for > >> >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me as > >> >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather > >> >> > comical. > > >> >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) > > >> > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to > >> > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature > >> > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: > > >> > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards me > >> > as feminine. > >> > (2) I know that I am not queer. > >> > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or queer. > >> > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other > >> > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent > >> > that Ball does. > > >> It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the > >> whole > >> point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those > >> things > >> to get up your nose, and succeeding. > > > There's an element of irritation, sure, although there's an element of > > entertainment as well. Okay, so I find it irritating when grown men > > act like children, so Ball acts like a child in order to irritate me, > > and I respond by pointing out that he's acting like a child. Okay, > > fine. I mean, I could interpret pretty much everything he says to me > > along these lines. It's all got about the same level of credibility, > > in my view. > > >> > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a > >> > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to > >> > explain that, yet again. > > >> I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's > >> watching here. > > > Well, okay, fine. It depends on your taste in humour, I guess. My > > cousin is a *******, my friend Mark Pearson, the director of Animal > > Liberation NSW, is ***, I had a friend once called Nick who was ***. I > > happen to think these people are entitled to just as much respect as > > any other member of the community and that the discrimination that > > they face is a serious issue. So certainly Ball's behaviour has > > entertainment value, but there's also a fairly strong element of > > disgust. I don't think that decent people use "queer" as an insult, > > even if they're just being clowns. > > >> > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion of > >> > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. If > >> > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I > >> > really am quite surprised. > > >> He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order to > >> evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and annoying, > >> and > >> it works perfectly. > > > He's certainly got a bit of education. As far as intelligence goes, > > I've known people who have shown more signs of intelligence. We'll > > probably have to agree to disagree on that one. > > > I mean, basically what you're doing here is making the conjecture that > > he is a troll. Somehow, he finds it entertaining when he says stupid > > things and I take the trouble to explain how extraordinarily stupid > > he's being. Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. I don't really have a > > problem with that. Hey, maybe you're all just trolling all the time > > and don't really believe any of the things you say. I certainly quite > > often have the experience of marvelling how anyone could talk such > > nonsense. And apparently the feeling is mutual. Bit of a problem, > > really. I choose to assume good faith and address everything people > > say as though they meant it seriously. > > >> >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said and > >> >> > failed to support it. > > >> >> >> You prefer > >> >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >> >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > > >> >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do > >> >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products whose > >> >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am not > >> >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which logically > >> >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. > > >> >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in suggesting > >> >> that > >> >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough. > > >> > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time > >> > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal > >> > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not > >> > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake of > >> > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed > >> > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see why > >> > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern > >> > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of > >> > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at > >> > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the > >> > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of these > >> > arguments. > > >> That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I reckon > >> that you don't even know you're doing it. > > > Well, you're right, I don't understand why it is a "verbal tap-dance". > > Seemed like a good faith attempt at sensible discussion to me. Maybe > > you could enlighten me what was wrong with it. > > >> >> Somehow you got the idea that you > >> >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% of > >> >> the > >> >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the 1% > >> >> who > >> >> has > >> >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere? > > >> > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to > >> > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me where > >> > that's been done? > > >> It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The trouble > >> is > >> not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way you > >> think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking > >> from > >> conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the > >> significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a moment > >> after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that? > > > Well, if that's your view of the situation maybe you shouldn't > > bother. > > > By the way, we were talking earlier about "condescension". Do you > > really have the idea that expressing these views about me is not > > condescending? > > I'm just trying to analyze what I'm seeing. > > > I'm not objecting, I just have a hard time seeing how > > you can feel free to express such views about me and yet complain > > about my behaviour. I mean, when I say that there are some areas of > > moral philosophy which I understand a bit better than you, I'm not > > expressing a derogatory opinion about you. There's no shame in being > > relatively new to some areas of moral philosophy. I do have some > > negative views about some aspects of your behaviour, sure, you don't > > seem to mind when I express those. But for some reason you don't like > > it when I express the view that I know a bit more than you about some > > areas of moral philosophy. > > I don't want to hear about it. If you know a lot about moral philosophy then > prove it by expressing an interesting or profound idea that I can relate to, > that makes sense, rings true. That's what real knowledge allows you to do, > not drop names and names of theories you've read about. Most of what you > have said in the group doesn't ring true at all, it's a bunch theoretical > bullshit that sounds like it was cooked up in some uni coffeee shop. > > > You say you think it's bullshit, okay, well > > fine, presumably you regard the opinions I hold about you which > > actually are derogatory as bullshit as well, and yet those opinions > > don't bother you. I mean, I've no desire to annoy anyone > > unnecessarily, but I'm not very clear on what you regard as rules of > > reasonable conduct. I just don't see where you get the idea that my > > conduct is so much more offensive than yours. > > It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're > annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am too > in my own way, I also get vebal abuse. > Except that (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying, and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these reactions (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as to justify anything resembling the reactions I get I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave, and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd. > > > >> If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and > > >> > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these > >> > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words in > >> > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all > >> > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly > >> > convincing. > > >> It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to > >> reason. > > > When I say there are some areas of moral philosophy I know a bit more > > about than you, I'm being condescending, but when you say I'm > > invulnerable to reason, you're being reasonable. > > Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said previously > it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it. > You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when I > challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices". I've never shifted ground on equal consideration in response to a challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't accept that. If you want to make your case against "equal consideration" in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort to engage with other views that people have expressed about the concept. I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor. Hey, maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal consideration" doesn't really mean anything. Somehow or other we've managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious. But I'm not convinced that you're in a position to pass judgement on that issue just yet. I could try to do more by way of trying to convey my understanding of the concept to you, if you'd undertake to be a bit more reasonable. > That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as > slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline. > Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid. You want to argue that things that I have said commit me to positions stronger than those that I actually wish to commit to. Well, you can try and convince me if you want, but I think that your arguments manifest a lack of understanding of what I am saying. And I don't really appreciate it when you refuse to assume good faith on my part. > > Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not > > bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's > > invulnerable to reason, is there now? > > There's always verbal abuse. > Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right ahead. > >> You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying > >> makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and not > >> half-ways smart enough.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 11, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > roups.com... > > >> > On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >> Dutch wrote: > >> >> > "Rupert" > wrote > >> >> >> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> >> > [..] > > >> >> >>> > You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not > >> >> >>> > entitled > >> >> >>> > to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you > >> >> >>> > while > >> >> >>> > you continue to hold this view. > > >> >> >>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > > >> >> >> No. > > >> >> >>> that is when > >> >> >>> you're not busy being condescending. > > >> >> >> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >> >> >> condescending than me. > > >> >> > I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I > >> >> > would > >> >> > never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am > >> >> > being > >> >> > generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. > >> >> > I > >> >> > may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but > >> >> > I'm > >> >> > not condescending. > > >> >> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you > >> >> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he > >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 > > >> > You know, Ball, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > >> > say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > >> > to put people down for the way they look. > > >> >> >>> Incidentally there are a number of > >> >> >>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you > >> >> >>> have > >> >> >>> no > >> >> >>> adequate response to. > > >> >> >> No, you don't. > > >> >> > Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > >> >> > questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions > >> >> > aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. > > >> >> >> You won't know anything about my response until you > >> >> >> agree to act like a decent human being. > > >> >> > A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt > >> >> > to > >> >> > be more "polite". > > >> >> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, > >> >> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant > >> >> little bitch.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. Your behaviour > >> > is quite the most extraordinarily despicable and contemptible > >> > behaviour I have ever encountered, but I have learned to appreciate > >> > its comic side. Dutch is the least of the offenders, but he certainly > >> > has no cause to congratulate himself on how polite he has been with > >> > me. If he wants to "get somewhere", he should try to make a compelling > >> > case for his point of view. > > >> > Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. > >> > The idea that anyone here has a legitimate cause for complaint because > >> > I occasionally express the view that I've acquired a somewhat better > >> > understanding of moral philosophy than others here, in the context of > >> > the sort of behaviour I've had to put up with, is a complete > >> > absurdity. > > >> You don't understand the culture of usenet, and specifically this > >> newsgroup. > >> I don't care how many books you've read, you don't come new into a group > >> and > >> expect to be able to act all superior the way you do and not get abuse > >> heaped on you. And yes you do. > > > The fact that I regard myself as quite well-read in moral philosophy > > did not come up with for a while, and it was in response to Ball's > > attempt to denigrate my intellectual credentials. I got totally > > irrational abuse right from my very first post. In reply to my very > > first post, Rick conjectured that I was a vegan and started abusing > > me. The abuse I get is because I'm vegan. Simple as that. It's > > bigotry. > > > I use quite a lot of newsgroups and forums on the Internet, including > > another forum about animal ethics in which a diversity of opinions are > > represented. I get on very well with everyone everywhere else but > > here. I have civilized exchanges of views with people based on mutual > > respect, where each person finds what the other has to say quite > > interesting. No-one regards me as "condescending", or "arrogant", or > > putting on airs of "superiority". No-one calls me a "pseudo- > > intellectual" or a "stuffed shirted loser". No-one takes the view that > > I am "immune to reason". > > > You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not > > with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not > > very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very > > decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments > > either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me > > with interesting information, and given me food for thought. > > Doesn't that sound a little contradictory to you? No, it's not. You draw attention to certain facts which pose genuine challenges for the positions that are out there in the literature. However, the conclusions that you draw from them are in my view too strong, and in my view you haven't done a very good job of arguing cogently for these conclusions. Hence my disagreement with you. > For all your alleged > superior reasoning, powers of articulation and genuine intellectual > abilities I haven't heard one thing memorable from you. I'm not much impressed by anything you've said either. I think I've made a few points which deserve more serious consideration than you've given them. It doesn't really matter, anyway. You've openly abandoned any attempt at engaging in reasoned argument. So what's to talk about? |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > >> pearl wrote: > >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no... > >>>> "pearl" > wrote in message > >>>> ... > >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message > >>>>> news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... > >>>>> > >>>>> on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT > >>>>> > >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote > >>>>>>> .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human - > >>>>>>> <..> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other > >>>>>>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. > > >>>>>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, > >>>>>>> Ethics and Society > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Abstract of Keynote talk: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Marc Bekoff > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA > >>>>>>> (Printable version, pdf) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes > >>>>>>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, > >>>>>>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows > >>>>>>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who > >>>>>>> have been shown to display empathy) > > >>>>>> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to > >>>>>> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species > >>>>>> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. > > >>>>> Goalpost move. > > >>>> No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer > >>>> to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other > >>>> species? > > >>> And he continues on with it.. > > >> No, ****. > > > > Why are you s > > Why are you such a loathsome ****, lesley? 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.' The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html > >> There was no goalpost move. > > > > Yes there was. > > No, there was not. There was, and to insist that there wasn't just makes you look foolish. However, let's say for the sake of argument that the "moral personhood" Dutch had been referring to, the "characteristic" that he says qualifies humans for full moral consideration and rights, was about inter-species relationships.. where does that leave you? In the toilet. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> upert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive >>>>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it >>>>>>>>>> correctly above. >>>>>>>>> See my reply to him. >>>>>>>> It was shit. >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. >>>>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. >>>>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow >>>>>>>> your own food >>>>>>> This is true but >>>>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >>>>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >>>>> You really are a bit weird >>>> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. >>> Very sequitur, >> That's not even a sentence, skirt boy. >> > > Of course not So learn how to write. >>>>> Yes, there is a "but". >>>> No, no "but", skirt-boy. >>> Instead of addressing the point >> No point. >> > > There was a point No point. >>>> You want that cushy life of >>>> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing >>>> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing >>>> animals for your food. >>> Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. >> Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours >> does. >> > > So it's been said many times And demonstrated equally many times. >>>>>> You prefer >>>>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >>>>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >>>>> You think that I am committed to ideals >>>> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a >>>> couple of years now that you don't really believe the >>>> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber >>>> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's >>>> pants. >>> The ideals I was referring to, >> "ar". > > You just keep mindlessly uttering those two letters over and over Not mindlessly - based on what you've written. You went to great lengths in a thread with Derek to claim you aren't a consequentialist. You've also gone to great lengths to show you're influenced more by Regan and Francione and that brand of ****wit than by Singer's brand of ****wit. I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently define or defend it. You just seem to be a Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion, and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola you've read can conceal that fact. >> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's >> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. >> > > *What* do you I say in order to get laid All the "ar" blabber. >>>>>>>> (except you don't do maths, >>>>>>> This statement is incorrect, >>>>>> It is correct. >>>>> Ah, the combination >>>> The statemebt is correct. >>> Well, I would certainly >> The statement is correct. >> > > You know We all know. >>>>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka >>>>>> bothering people during their dinner), >>>>> We call businesses, >>>> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. >>> Some of them don't want to talk to me. >> NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech. >> > > you don't know anything about my job. I know you bother people doing it. It's an inherent part of the job. >>>>>> and you do a >>>>>> little animal "rights" passivism. >>>>> I do some activism >>>> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's >>>> all. >>> No, it's not. >> Yes, it's all. >> > > Sometimes, ALL the time, skirt-boy. Passive blabbering of bullshit is all you do. >>>> That's passivism. >>>>>>>> preferring >>>>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at >>>>>>>> "ar".) >>>>>> Exactly. >>>>> As always >>>> Right. >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. >>>>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? >>>>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to >>>>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he >>>>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. >>>>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. >>>>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. >>>>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) >>>>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you >>>>>>>> claim to believe. >>>>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, >>>>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not >>>>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. >>>>> Why "must" I believe this? >>>> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of >>>> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below >>>> about your not really believing in "ar" at all. >>> So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing >>> in this. >> Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar". >> > > Could you please answer the question Done, many times over. >>>>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim >>>>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must >>>>>> believe in at least that one "right", >>>>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" >>>> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in >>>> all that you have said. >>> If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails >>> that I am morally required >> You've professed belief in "ar", > > Whatever that means. Yes, exactly. You've professed belief in it, but the incoherence of your apparent position leads one to wonder just what the hell you really mean. Apart from not putting animal bits in your mouth, it doesn't seem to mean a ****ing thing; certainly nothing concrete. >> and that requires you >> not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease. >> >>>>>> but your behavior >>>>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the >>>>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. >>>>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in >>>> You're just a mess, skirt-boy. >>> Let's talk about the foundations of >> You're just a total mess, skirt-boy. >> > > Whatever. No, not "whatever", skirt-boy - a mess. An incoherent, gooey, hyper-emotional mess. >>>>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. >>>>>> So...we're clear on this, then. >>>>> It's false. >>>> It is true. >>> An assertion isn't an argument. >> The truth has already been established. >> > > You've never stated which moral belief I have expressed a commitment > to That killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". >>>>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates >>>>>>>>>> those rights. >>>>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial >>>>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. >>>>>>>> You are. >>>> QED So. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> [..] >>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled >>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while >>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view. >>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, >>>>>> No. >>>>>>> that is when >>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending. >>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more >>>>>> condescending than me. >>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would >>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being >>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I >>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm >>>>> not condescending. >>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you >>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 >>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to >>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try >>> to put people down for the way they look. >> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear. >> > > So this is an actual claim The picture speaks for itself. >>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of >>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no >>>>>>> adequate response to. >>>>>> No, you don't. >>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar >>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions >>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. >>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you >>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being. >>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to >>>>> be more "polite". >>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, >>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant >>>> little bitch. >>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. >> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable. >> > > It is not reasonable. It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish has been granted. >>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. >> No. > > You think that We all do. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... >> pearl wrote: >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... >>>> pearl wrote: >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:QSvki.100576$NV3.84753@pd7urf2no... >>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>>>> news:Cwbki.98803$1i1.5893@pd7urf3no... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> on 08 July 2007 21:10 GMT >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The characteristic they lack is being human - >>>>>>>>> <..> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> humans possess a characteristic that no other >>>>>>>>>> species possesses that we know of, the capacity of moral personhood. >>>>>>>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine, >>>>>>>>> Ethics and Society >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Abstract of Keynote talk: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marc Bekoff >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA >>>>>>>>> (Printable version, pdf) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes >>>>>>>>> they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology, >>>>>>>>> and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows >>>>>>>>> that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who >>>>>>>>> have been shown to display empathy) >>>>>>>> That's all well and good, but these observations virtually all refer to >>>>>>>> familial social relationships, they say nothing about inter-species >>>>>>>> relationships in animals, which is what we are focusing on in aaev. >>>>>>> Goalpost move. >>>>>> No it's not, I am saying that all those so-called "observations" above refer >>>>>> to intrafilial relationaships. Are mice showing empathy towards other >>>>>> species? >>>>> And he continues on with it.. >>>> No, ****. >>> Why are you s >> Why are you such a loathsome ****, lesley? > > 'Bullies project their **** off, stupid ****. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jul 11, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > On Jul 11, 4:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> groups.com... >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >> >> >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >> >> >> >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"? >> >> >> > Why >> >> >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I >> >> >> > mean, >> >> >> > I >> >> >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather >> >> >> > comical. >> >> >> >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it) >> >> >> > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to >> >> > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature >> >> > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons: >> >> >> > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards >> >> > me >> >> > as feminine. >> >> > (2) I know that I am not queer. >> >> > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or >> >> > queer. >> >> > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other >> >> > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent >> >> > that Ball does. >> >> >> It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the >> >> whole >> >> point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those >> >> things >> >> to get up your nose, and succeeding. >> >> > There's an element of irritation, sure, although there's an element of >> > entertainment as well. Okay, so I find it irritating when grown men >> > act like children, so Ball acts like a child in order to irritate me, >> > and I respond by pointing out that he's acting like a child. Okay, >> > fine. I mean, I could interpret pretty much everything he says to me >> > along these lines. It's all got about the same level of credibility, >> > in my view. >> >> >> > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a >> >> > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to >> >> > explain that, yet again. >> >> >> I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's >> >> watching here. >> >> > Well, okay, fine. It depends on your taste in humour, I guess. My >> > cousin is a *******, my friend Mark Pearson, the director of Animal >> > Liberation NSW, is ***, I had a friend once called Nick who was ***. I >> > happen to think these people are entitled to just as much respect as >> > any other member of the community and that the discrimination that >> > they face is a serious issue. So certainly Ball's behaviour has >> > entertainment value, but there's also a fairly strong element of >> > disgust. I don't think that decent people use "queer" as an insult, >> > even if they're just being clowns. >> >> >> > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion >> >> > of >> >> > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult. >> >> > If >> >> > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I >> >> > really am quite surprised. >> >> >> He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order >> >> to >> >> evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and >> >> annoying, >> >> and >> >> it works perfectly. >> >> > He's certainly got a bit of education. As far as intelligence goes, >> > I've known people who have shown more signs of intelligence. We'll >> > probably have to agree to disagree on that one. >> >> > I mean, basically what you're doing here is making the conjecture that >> > he is a troll. Somehow, he finds it entertaining when he says stupid >> > things and I take the trouble to explain how extraordinarily stupid >> > he's being. Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. I don't really have a >> > problem with that. Hey, maybe you're all just trolling all the time >> > and don't really believe any of the things you say. I certainly quite >> > often have the experience of marvelling how anyone could talk such >> > nonsense. And apparently the feeling is mutual. Bit of a problem, >> > really. I choose to assume good faith and address everything people >> > say as though they meant it seriously. >> >> >> >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > failed to support it. >> >> >> >> >> You prefer >> >> >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >> >> >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >> >> >> >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do >> >> >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products >> >> >> > whose >> >> >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am >> >> >> > not >> >> >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which >> >> >> > logically >> >> >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct. >> >> >> >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in >> >> >> suggesting >> >> >> that >> >> >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough. >> >> >> > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time >> >> > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal >> >> > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not >> >> > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake >> >> > of >> >> > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed >> >> > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see >> >> > why >> >> > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern >> >> > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of >> >> > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at >> >> > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the >> >> > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of >> >> > these >> >> > arguments. >> >> >> That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I >> >> reckon >> >> that you don't even know you're doing it. >> >> > Well, you're right, I don't understand why it is a "verbal tap-dance". >> > Seemed like a good faith attempt at sensible discussion to me. Maybe >> > you could enlighten me what was wrong with it. I was as eager to do that as I am to untangle a ball of string after my cat is done with it. >> >> >> Somehow you got the idea that you >> >> >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99% >> >> >> of >> >> >> the >> >> >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the >> >> >> 1% >> >> >> who >> >> >> has >> >> >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere? >> >> >> > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to >> >> > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me >> >> > where >> >> > that's been done? >> >> >> It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The >> >> trouble >> >> is >> >> not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way >> >> you >> >> think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking >> >> from >> >> conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the >> >> significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a >> >> moment >> >> after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that? >> >> > Well, if that's your view of the situation maybe you shouldn't >> > bother. >> >> > By the way, we were talking earlier about "condescension". Do you >> > really have the idea that expressing these views about me is not >> > condescending? >> >> I'm just trying to analyze what I'm seeing. >> >> > I'm not objecting, I just have a hard time seeing how >> > you can feel free to express such views about me and yet complain >> > about my behaviour. I mean, when I say that there are some areas of >> > moral philosophy which I understand a bit better than you, I'm not >> > expressing a derogatory opinion about you. There's no shame in being >> > relatively new to some areas of moral philosophy. I do have some >> > negative views about some aspects of your behaviour, sure, you don't >> > seem to mind when I express those. But for some reason you don't like >> > it when I express the view that I know a bit more than you about some >> > areas of moral philosophy. >> >> I don't want to hear about it. If you know a lot about moral philosophy >> then >> prove it by expressing an interesting or profound idea that I can relate >> to, >> that makes sense, rings true. That's what real knowledge allows you to >> do, >> not drop names and names of theories you've read about. Most of what you >> have said in the group doesn't ring true at all, it's a bunch theoretical >> bullshit that sounds like it was cooked up in some uni coffeee shop. >> >> > You say you think it's bullshit, okay, well >> > fine, presumably you regard the opinions I hold about you which >> > actually are derogatory as bullshit as well, and yet those opinions >> > don't bother you. I mean, I've no desire to annoy anyone >> > unnecessarily, but I'm not very clear on what you regard as rules of >> > reasonable conduct. I just don't see where you get the idea that my >> > conduct is so much more offensive than yours. >> >> It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're >> annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am >> too >> in my own way, I also get vebal abuse. >> > > Except that > > (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying, > and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these > reactions No, it started from the beginning and continues. > (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept > that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as > to justify anything resembling the reactions I get Tough shit if you don't accept it. > I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and > say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my > behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave, > and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will > continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to > rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd. Not my problem, if you want to get different reactions then act differently. The only person you can change is yourself. There is one person who attacks me viciously every time he comes here. He spends ages assembling lists of out of context quotes from over the years trying to present a distorted picture of what I believe. I just snip all his ranting and reply to anything of interest that may be in the message. You need to learn to stop trying to control how others react to you, philosopher. >> >> If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and >> >> >> > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these >> >> > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words >> >> > in >> >> > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all >> >> > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly >> >> > convincing. >> >> >> It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to >> >> reason. >> >> > When I say there are some areas of moral philosophy I know a bit more >> > about than you, I'm being condescending, but when you say I'm >> > invulnerable to reason, you're being reasonable. >> >> Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said >> previously >> it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it. >> You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when >> I >> challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices". > > I've never shifted ground on equal consideration Then there's these constant denials. EVERY TIME I bring up some critique of your position you issue a deny, EVERY TIME. It's totally knee-jerk. > in response to a > challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean > that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't > accept that. I've described my position, that's not it, explain yours. Not what it DOESN'T mean, what it DOES mean. > If you want to make your case against "equal > consideration" How can I make a case against something so amorphous? I have tried in any case. Anyway, the onus is firmly on your shoulders, EXPLAIN the idea, then support it. You have done neither. > in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort > to engage with other views that people have expressed about the > concept. I read DeGrazia's, now it's time for yours. I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved > unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor. I think it goes deeper than that, it's your thinking that is confused. If the concept was clear in your mind I have no doubt that you could express it. Since it is not clear in your mind, the explanations are equally unclear. Hey, > maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics > who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal > consideration" doesn't really mean anything. Until you demonstrate otherwise I tend to think that is the case. Listing yourself as among a list of "academics" is not a substitute for a coherent explanation. It's the kind of thing you do all the time that just invites more derision. > Somehow or other we've > managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious. It's either you who are not seeing the obvious or the other 99%, take your pick. > But I'm not > convinced that you're in a position to pass judgement on that issue > just yet. I could try to do more by way of trying to convey my > understanding of the concept to you, if you'd undertake to be a bit > more reasonable. I'm not optimistic that that will happen because I don't believe that the concept is coherent, therefore it doesn't lend itself to being parsed into clear, concise terms. > >> That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as >> slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline. >> > > Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid. There's that ever-present knee jerk denial again. >You want to argue that > things that I have said commit me to positions stronger than those > that I actually wish to commit to. Well, you can try and convince me > if you want, but I think that your arguments manifest a lack of > understanding of what I am saying. And I don't really appreciate it > when you refuse to assume good faith on my part. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I believe that the ideas you have chosen to advocate dictate this type of thinking and arguing. You have no choice, if you choose to support an incoherent position your arguments must necessarily be the same. If the concepts carried the weight of reason and truth they would lend themselves to clear articulation with no sophistry, name dropping or condescension. > >> > Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not >> > bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's >> > invulnerable to reason, is there now? >> >> There's always verbal abuse. >> > > Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right > ahead. I already feel good about myself, verbal abuse just reflects my frustration with someone. > >> >> You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying >> >> makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and >> >> not >> >> half-ways smart enough.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jul 11, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >> > You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not >> > with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not >> > very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very >> > decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments >> > either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me >> > with interesting information, and given me food for thought. >> >> Doesn't that sound a little contradictory to you? > > No, it's not. Knee-jerk. > You draw attention to certain facts which pose genuine > challenges for the positions that are out there in the literature. > However, the conclusions that you draw from them are in my view too > strong, and in my view you haven't done a very good job of arguing > cogently for these conclusions. Hence my disagreement with you. Sounds to me like we've done a better job than you in raising cogent arguments. > >> For all your alleged >> superior reasoning, powers of articulation and genuine intellectual >> abilities I haven't heard one thing memorable from you. > > I'm not much impressed by anything you've said either. That's not what you said right above. > I think I've > made a few points which deserve more serious consideration than you've > given them. It doesn't really matter, anyway. You've openly abandoned > any attempt at engaging in reasoned argument. So what's to talk about? I have lost any optimism I had for a fruitful dialogue but I am still reading your replies, so you still have the opportunity to make a positive impression if you can. In my opinion all the hand-wringing about verbal abuse has just become an unfortunate but convenient distraction. If you have something worthwhile to contribute then forget the crap and lets hear it. I'll say though, I don't believe that will happen, not because you're upset at us or because you're not articulate, but because these ideas you have chosen to embrace are simply not coherent ideas. They can only be expressed by the circuitous, vague verbiage that you, DeGrazia and Regan all use. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 12, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> upert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i13g2000 prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive > >>>>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it > >>>>>>>>>> correctly above. > >>>>>>>>> See my reply to him. > >>>>>>>> It was shit. > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. > >>>>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. > >>>>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow > >>>>>>>> your own food > >>>>>>> This is true but > >>>>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine > >>>>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. > >>>>> You really are a bit weird > >>>> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. > >>> Very sequitur, > >> That's not even a sentence, skirt boy. > > > Of course not > > So learn how to write. > > >>>>> Yes, there is a "but". > >>>> No, no "but", skirt-boy. > >>> Instead of addressing the point > >> No point. > > > There was a point > > No point. > > >>>> You want that cushy life of > >>>> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing > >>>> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing > >>>> animals for your food. > >>> Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. > >> Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours > >> does. > > > So it's been said many times > > And demonstrated equally many times. > So where can I find just one demonstration? > >>>>>> You prefer > >>>>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of > >>>>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. > >>>>> You think that I am committed to ideals > >>>> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a > >>>> couple of years now that you don't really believe the > >>>> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber > >>>> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's > >>>> pants. > >>> The ideals I was referring to, > >> "ar". > > > You just keep mindlessly uttering those two letters over and over > > Not mindlessly - based on what you've written. You > went to great lengths in a thread with Derek to claim > you aren't a consequentialist. That's right, I'm not a consequentialist. I've certainly made that very clear many times. > You've also gone to > great lengths to show you're influenced more by Regan > and Francione and that brand of ****wit than by > Singer's brand of ****wit. > Oh, I don't know about that. Singer, DeGrazia, Regan, and Francione are all interesting thinkers. I have a lot of respect for Singer's work and Regan's work. I'm probably more influenced by DeGrazia than anyone else. I agree, the sorts of issues that come up here do raise problems for Regan and Francione. What you'd like to be the case, Ball, is that the only options for people who make radical challenges to the status quo regarding nonhuman animals are Singer's preference utilitarianism or a view which entails that we should never under any circumstances buy products whose production caused harm to "subjects-of-a-life", or sentient beings. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. That's what I've been trying to get into your thick skull for the last few years. Yes, I think there are some constraints on how we should treat animals. The question is, what constraints? Suppose someone owned some land and had some dangerous machinery operating on it, and I ignored the warning sign and trespassed on the land and got killed. Has he violated my right to life? What if I lacked the ability to read the warning sign? Just how much is he obliged to do to take precautions against me getting hurt? And is there an absolutely unconditional obligation for others to boycott any products he might produce with the machinery if he fails to take adequate precautions? All I've said is that there are some constraints on how we may treat animals. I think even Tibor Machan agrees with that: he thinks we may forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat. If you want to call my view an AR view, fine, but if you think I've committed myself to an absolute unconditional obligation to boycott products whose production involved harming animals, you're going to have to do more by way of showing me where. I haven't made any such commitment. It really is time you faced up to that reality. > I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent > slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently > define or defend it. As discussed a few times, it's no more incoherent than your political philosophy, or any "welfarist's" philosophy regarding animals. Welfarists have just as much trouble defining and defending where to draw the line as I do. And everyone is a welfarist, even Tibor Machan. > You just seem to be a > Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given > that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion, > and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola > you've read can conceal that fact. > You really are a joke, Ball. I wonder if you really believe all this nonsense. I might as well say that your position arises out of a sadistic desire to be cruel to animals. I have the same amount of empathy for animals as any normal person. There is no shame in having empathy for animals, and whether it is "feminine" or "masculine" is irrelevant. If your position is rationally preferable to mine, it should be possible to show me how by means of rational argument. This ain't it. > >> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's > >> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. > > > *What* do you I say in order to get laid > > All the "ar" blabber. > That's not an answer, Ball. Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's pretty hard to find vegan girls. > >>>>>>>> (except you don't do maths, > >>>>>>> This statement is incorrect, > >>>>>> It is correct. > >>>>> Ah, the combination > >>>> The statemebt is correct. > >>> Well, I would certainly > >> The statement is correct. > > > You know > > We all know. > Here is the paper I am working on at the moment. http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf You don't know very much at all, Ball, but supposing that this fantasy you made up on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that I am not doing mathematical research at the moment were correct, what of it? I do maths because I like doing it, not for the sake of gaining your approval. Do you imagine I care about your opinion about how I spend my time? > >>>>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka > >>>>>> bothering people during their dinner), > >>>>> We call businesses, > >>>> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. > >>> Some of them don't want to talk to me. > >> NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech. > > > you don't know anything about my job. > > I know you bother people doing it. It's an inherent > part of the job. > A small number of people express annoyance. Very small. You put an enormous amount of energy into bothering people here just for fun. There's nothing wrong with telemarketing. You would take on a telemarketing job if it was convenient for you at the time. I'm sure your early work history contains a few jobs that are not that prestigious. > >>>>>> and you do a > >>>>>> little animal "rights" passivism. > >>>>> I do some activism > >>>> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's > >>>> all. > >>> No, it's not. > >> Yes, it's all. > > > Sometimes, > > ALL the time, skirt-boy. Passive blabbering of > bullshit is all you do. > I take it you know this the same way you knew I was going to be stuck in telemarketing for the rest of my life? > >>>> That's passivism. > >>>>>>>> preferring > >>>>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at > >>>>>>>> "ar".) > >>>>>> Exactly. > >>>>> As always > >>>> Right. > >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. > >>>>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? > >>>>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to > >>>>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he > >>>>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. > >>>>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. > >>>>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. > >>>>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) > >>>>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you > >>>>>>>> claim to believe. > >>>>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, > >>>>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not > >>>>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. > >>>>> Why "must" I believe this? > >>>> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of > >>>> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below > >>>> about your not really believing in "ar" at all. > >>> So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing > >>> in this. > >> Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar". > > > Could you please answer the question > > Done, many times over. > Well, you have posted a new thread about this, so I guess we can discuss the matter there if you want to. > >>>>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim > >>>>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must > >>>>>> believe in at least that one "right", > >>>>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" > >>>> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in > >>>> all that you have said. > >>> If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails > >>> that I am morally required > >> You've professed belief in "ar", > > > Whatever that means. > > Yes, exactly. You've professed belief in it, In *what*? You've made the claim that I've expressed a set of beliefs which entail that I ought not to be supporting commercial agriculture. Show me where. *What* beliefs have I expressed which entail this? > but the > incoherence of your apparent position leads one to > wonder just what the hell you really mean. Apart from > not putting animal bits in your mouth, it doesn't seem > to mean a ****ing thing; certainly nothing concrete. > > >> and that requires you > >> not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease. > > >>>>>> but your behavior > >>>>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the > >>>>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. > >>>>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in > >>>> You're just a mess, skirt-boy. > >>> Let's talk about the foundations of > >> You're just a total mess, skirt-boy. > > > Whatever. > > No, not "whatever", skirt-boy - a mess. An incoherent, > gooey, hyper-emotional mess. > Why don't you respond to my discussion of the incoherence of your political position, you pathetic coward? > >>>>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. > >>>>>> So...we're clear on this, then. > >>>>> It's false. > >>>> It is true. > >>> An assertion isn't an argument. > >> The truth has already been established. > > > You've never stated which moral belief I have expressed a commitment > > to > > That killing animals is wrong. > No-one advocates this as an exceptionless rule, certainly I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". > >>>>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates > >>>>>>>>>> those rights. > >>>>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial > >>>>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. > >>>>>>>> You are. > >>>> QED > > So. "Quod erat demonstrandum" - which was to be demonstrated. Yes, it was to be demonstrated and still is. But where has it been demonstrated? Nowhere. Not even a weak attempt at demonstration. Just an assertion. The same unargued assertion we've been hearing for years. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> What you'd like to be the case, Ball, is that the only options for > people who make radical challenges to the status quo regarding > nonhuman animals are Singer's preference utilitarianism or a view > which entails that we should never under any circumstances buy > products whose production caused harm to "subjects-of-a-life", or > sentient beings. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Why isn't it as simple as that, why are you not at least compelled to do everything in your power? Because it's too inconvenient? The idea that humans have rights implies that we do everything in our power to protect their safety. > That's what > I've been trying to get into your thick skull for the last few years. Its not his skull with the density issues. > Yes, I think there are some constraints on how we should treat > animals. The question is, what constraints? Suppose someone owned some > land and had some dangerous machinery operating on it, and I ignored > the warning sign and trespassed on the land and got killed. Has he > violated my right to life? What if I lacked the ability to read the > warning sign? Just how much is he obliged to do to take precautions > against me getting hurt? If he knows that there are thousands of illiterate, innocent rights-holders that live and play around the machinery then he would be morally obliged to do more than put up a useless sign. > And is there an absolutely unconditional > obligation for others to boycott any products he might produce with > the machinery if he fails to take adequate precautions? Yes, assuming he isn't quickly arrested and locked up for gross negligence. > All I've said is that there are some constraints on how we may treat > animals. I think even Tibor Machan agrees with that: he thinks we may > forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat. May intervene??? How ****ing wishy-washy are you? > If you > want to call my view an AR view, fine, but if you think I've committed > myself to an absolute unconditional obligation to boycott products > whose production involved harming animals, you're going to have to do > more by way of showing me where. I haven't made any such commitment. > It really is time you faced up to that reality. I've already faced up to the reality that you haven't taken any position at all. >> I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent >> slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently >> define or defend it. > > As discussed a few times, it's no more incoherent than your political > philosophy, or any "welfarist's" philosophy regarding animals. What rubbish, your position on animal rights has no bearing on his political philosophy or anything else. > Welfarists have just as much trouble defining and defending where to > draw the line as I do. No they don't, nobody I have ever met has as much difficulty as you defining where they draw the line. The only thing you seem to know is that you don't accept the status quo. > And everyone is a welfarist, even Tibor Machan. Who the hell cares about him? >> You just seem to be a >> Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given >> that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion, >> and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola >> you've read can conceal that fact. >> > > You really are a joke, Ball. I wonder if you really believe all this > nonsense. I might as well say that your position arises out of a > sadistic desire to be cruel to animals. I have the same amount of > empathy for animals as any normal person. There is no shame in having > empathy for animals, and whether it is "feminine" or "masculine" is > irrelevant. If your position is rationally preferable to mine, it > should be possible to show me how by means of rational argument. This > ain't it. You ain't doin' it either pal. >> >> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's >> >> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. >> >> > *What* do you I say in order to get laid >> >> All the "ar" blabber. >> > > That's not an answer, Ball. > > Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's > pretty hard to find vegan girls. If you're as tedious in person as you are in this newsgroup its no wonder you can't get laid. [..] |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 12, 11:24 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > What you'd like to be the case, Ball, is that the only options for > > people who make radical challenges to the status quo regarding > > nonhuman animals are Singer's preference utilitarianism or a view > > which entails that we should never under any circumstances buy > > products whose production caused harm to "subjects-of-a-life", or > > sentient beings. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. > > Why isn't it as simple as that, why are you not at least compelled to do > everything in your power? Because it's too inconvenient? The idea that > humans have rights implies that we do everything in our power to protect > their safety. > Well, you tell me. My point was simply that one may coherently hold a view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. You too hold such a view, so presumably you agree with me. It's pretty bloody obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a thick skull. If you want to talk about why I think it's consistent with equal consideration, well, fine, we can have another go at that, once we've come to an agreement about what we regard as reasonable behaviour. > > That's what > > I've been trying to get into your thick skull for the last few years. > > Its not his skull with the density issues. > > > Yes, I think there are some constraints on how we should treat > > animals. The question is, what constraints? Suppose someone owned some > > land and had some dangerous machinery operating on it, and I ignored > > the warning sign and trespassed on the land and got killed. Has he > > violated my right to life? What if I lacked the ability to read the > > warning sign? Just how much is he obliged to do to take precautions > > against me getting hurt? > > If he knows that there are thousands of illiterate, innocent rights-holders > that live and play around the machinery then he would be morally obliged to > do more than put up a useless sign. > And if pretty much all food were produced in this way, how strong would be the obligation to boycott food produced in this way? > > And is there an absolutely unconditional > > obligation for others to boycott any products he might produce with > > the machinery if he fails to take adequate precautions? > > Yes, assuming he isn't quickly arrested and locked up for gross negligence. > > > All I've said is that there are some constraints on how we may treat > > animals. I think even Tibor Machan agrees with that: he thinks we may > > forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat. > > May intervene??? How ****ing wishy-washy are you? > Not wishy-washy at all. Just giving an accurate statement of his view. > > If you > > want to call my view an AR view, fine, but if you think I've committed > > myself to an absolute unconditional obligation to boycott products > > whose production involved harming animals, you're going to have to do > > more by way of showing me where. I haven't made any such commitment. > > It really is time you faced up to that reality. > > I've already faced up to the reality that you haven't taken any position at > all. > I've said some things about what I believe, you've said some things about what you believe. I've done as much by way of clarifying my position as you have. I don't take the view that you've shown that your position is more reasonable. > >> I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent > >> slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently > >> define or defend it. > > > As discussed a few times, it's no more incoherent than your political > > philosophy, or any "welfarist's" philosophy regarding animals. > > What rubbish, your position on animal rights has no bearing on his political > philosophy or anything else. > If my position is an incoherent slop, then so is his political philosophy and so is any welfarist position that I've encountered, including yours. > > Welfarists have just as much trouble defining and defending where to > > draw the line as I do. > > No they don't, nobody I have ever met has as much difficulty as you defining > where they draw the line. The only thing you seem to know is that you don't > accept the status quo. > You don't accept the status quo either. As far as I'm concerned, your position has no clearer a definition or foundation than mine. I don't know of any position that does. > > And everyone is a welfarist, even Tibor Machan. > > Who the hell cares about him? > > >> You just seem to be a > >> Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given > >> that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion, > >> and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola > >> you've read can conceal that fact. > > > You really are a joke, Ball. I wonder if you really believe all this > > nonsense. I might as well say that your position arises out of a > > sadistic desire to be cruel to animals. I have the same amount of > > empathy for animals as any normal person. There is no shame in having > > empathy for animals, and whether it is "feminine" or "masculine" is > > irrelevant. If your position is rationally preferable to mine, it > > should be possible to show me how by means of rational argument. This > > ain't it. > > You ain't doin' it either pal. > I've made comments about weaknesses in various arguments people have put here. They're all correct, no-one's rebutted them. People have tried to claim that my position has various flaws but no-one's succeeded in showing that either. All the antis have made quite a lot of ludicrous claims about me, including you, and they've utterly failed to support those claims. I don't maintain that I have knockdown arguments for why you should accept my position. The day I think I have something interesting to say about that I'll probably publish it somewhere and let you know. But I think that my position is at least as reasonable as any of yours and that pretty much everything that you say about me and my behaviour is a joke, and I've done a good job of explaining why. You've obviously all set yourselves the goal of attacking my position. So far you've failed to demonstrate that it's any weaker than any of yours. > >> >> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's > >> >> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. > > >> > *What* do you I say in order to get laid > > >> All the "ar" blabber. > > > That's not an answer, Ball. > > > Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's > > pretty hard to find vegan girls. > > If you're as tedious in person as you are in this newsgroup its no wonder > you can't get laid. > Yeah, I should be more like you guys. I'm sure if I carried on the way you people do in this newsgroup women would be so impressed. > [..] |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 7, 4:44 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "irate vegan" > > > > No, the argument from marginal cases is a powerful tool that shows > > the flaw in positions against the proposition of animal rights. If those > > against the proposition base their argument on a petty prejudice and > > class discrimination, simply because those outside that class fail to > > exhibit the characteristics normally associated with those in that class, > > the argument from marginal cases logically excludes a large number > > of humans from holding rights, and that alone shows the absurdity > > of that argument. > > Incorrect,http://tinyurl.com/2ypgka(html version ofhttp://folk.uio.no/jonw/moralstat99.doc) > Dutch, I've read this essay up to page 21. In order to assess this alleged rebuttal I think we need to be a bit clearer about the notion of a "capability" which seems to play quite a central role in the argument. He doesn't really do much by way of explaining the notion but he refers to Saugstad's doctoral thesis. I'll see if I can have a look at that. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 8, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "irate vegan" > wrote > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:44:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "irate vegan" > > > >>> No, the argument from marginal cases is a powerful tool that shows > >>> the flaw in positions against the proposition of animal rights. If those > >>> against the proposition base their argument on a petty prejudice and > >>> class discrimination, simply because those outside that class fail to > >>> exhibit the characteristics normally associated with those in that > >>> class, > >>> the argument from marginal cases logically excludes a large number > >>> of humans from holding rights, and that alone shows the absurdity > >>> of that argument. > > >>Incorrect,http://tinyurl.com/2ypgka(html version of > >>http://folk.uio.no/jonw/moralstat99.doc) > > >>I recommend that you start from the beginning, but here is an excerpt: > > >>A rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases > >>It may well be that Warren's proposal at this point is more adequate in > >>relation to common sense than the positions of Regan or Singer. > >>Nevertheless, it appears that all three of them have based their arguments > >>on the assumption that the concepts of a moral person and a moral agent > >>are > >>synonymous or equivalent. This assumption can be contested, and if it is > >>rejected, it seems that their arguments will not work. > > > There's no "rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases" in that > > paragraph; just a comment on how 3 philosophers define moral > > persons and agents, and the assumption that their assumptions > > can be contested. > > Did you read the entire essay up to that point? It would help. That > paragraph is the first step in a careful evaluation, not the whole rebuttal. > > >>An alternative to their assumption has been developed by Jens Saugstad in > >>his doctoral thesis on The Moral Ontology of Human Fetuses; A Metaphysical > >>Investigation of Personhood (1994). On Saugstad's interpretation, Kant's > >>concept of a moral person is generic in relation to that of a moral agent. > >>This implies that the class of moral agents is a subclass of moral > >>persons; > >>some moral persons are moral agents, others are not. > > > There's no "rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases" in that > > paragraph; just a comment on the possible alternative to their > > assumption and an implication that the class of moral agents is > > a subclass of moral persons, finishing with, "some moral persons > > are moral agents while some are not." So what? > > So it clarifies the view of morality, defining moral agents as a > sub-category apart from persons. That is an important step. > > >>On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two > >>kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral > >>agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or her > >>actions, and to be answerable for them. > > > Which is exactly what I wrote over 4 years ago > > > "We impose penalties upon wrongdoers on the basis that > > they are morally responsible agents carrying obligations > > to endure the consequences of their wrongdoing. Legally, > > you can be compensated by me through the courts if I > > hit you (battery) or unintentionally hit you with my car > > (negligence), because according to the judge you must be > > reimbursed to the extent of your injury and that I, being > > obligated by my moral responsibility must pay you." > > Derek 30 May 2003http://tinyurl.com/2wedev > > > But it does nothing to debunk the argument from marginal > > cases, of course. > > You're not evaluating this text honestly. > > >>This requires not only the > >>capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also > >>the > >>operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice. However, a > >>subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without having the > >>operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral person without > >>being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded on the actual > >>capability and not on the potential ability.24 > > > There's no "rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases" in that > > paragraph; just a comment on moral agency and personhood. > > The rebuttal hasn't come yet, he lays the foundation. > > >>Two consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it extends > >>moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and necessary > >>condition for this extension is the presence of the capability of moral > >>agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the operative ability > >>is also present. On this ground equal inherent value and equal basic > >>rights > >>can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human beings. > > > There's no "rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases" in that > > paragraph; just a comment on the possible consequences from > > the former paragraph and an unsupported assumption that inherent > > value, according to his version of it, only exists in humans. > > That is a misreading of what he says there. He does not say that inherent > value exists only in humans, in fact as you comment below he accepts that > some non-humans may be moral persons. he also did not say anywhere that > inherent value only exists in humans, the term he uses is "equal inherent > value". That paragraph does the following... it shows a foundation for the > extension of moral status and rights to marginal humans based on their > possession of moral personhood. This rebuts the AFMC. In order for > non-humans to be included into equal basic rights it needs to be shown that > it is plausible to conclude that they possess moral personhood, the > capability to act as a moral agent, if not the operative ability. > > >>Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not > >>equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as > >>in > >>normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages of > >>pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents, but > >>they have it potentially and it will be actualised in due time. Still they > >>may be assumed to have the capability as an actual internal property, and > >>this is the ground for considering them to be persons. It may be asked > >>whether this argument justifies the assumption about equal moral status > >>value. Would it not be possible to introduce grading on the basis of how > >>far > >>the potentiality for moral agency has developed? This view has been > >>propounded in discussions about abortion. On the basis of the present > >>argument, however, it must be rejected, since moral status value is > >>assumed > >>to be grounded on capabilities of agency, which are actual, and not on > >>potential abilities. > > > There's no "rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases" in that > > paragraph; just a comment on moral agency and the assumption > > that it can be graded when based on another assumption where > > value is grounded on capabilities of agency. Huh > > Make a counter argument which is more reasonable. > > >>In other cases there are humans who have been moral agents, but have lost > >>the required abilities. This pertains to many cases of the severely brain > >>damaged and the severely senile. If we assume that they have retained > >>their > >>capabilities of being moral agents, > > > How can we possibly assume that "the severely brain-damaged > > and the severely senile" "retain their capabilities of being moral > > agents" when by his own definition, "In order to be a moral agent, > > a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or her > > actions, and to be answerable for them."? haw haw haw > > Re-read the difference between "capability" and "operative ability". > Newborns have capability, but not operative ability, the same goes for > marginal cases. > > > > >>we still have a sufficient reason for > >>ascribing equal inherent value to them. Against this it may be objected > >>that > >>they may have lost not only their ability of being moral agents, but also > >>their capability. There is room for much empirical doubt about these > >>borderline cases, and for that reason there is also room for giving them > >>the > >>benefit of doubt. Admittedly, this is a somewhat ad hoc assumption. > > > He's damn right it is! > > Note how careful he is not to jump to conclusions. Its unfortunate that the > proponents of AR are not so circumspect. > > >> Even if it is not a good scientific explanation, > > > It isn't. > > He admits as much, because he is being open, transparent and objective in > his approach. > > > > >>however, it may be a good moral reason. > > > However, it may not be, and while he openly contradicts himself > > by assuming that "the severely brain-damaged and the severely senile" > > "retain their capabilities of being moral agents" after stating, "In > > order > > to be a moral agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility > > for his or her actions, and to be answerable for them.", I have every > > good reason to reject his whole position generally. > > Go back and re-read the difference between "capability" and "operative > ability". You skipped over the foundation for his position by assuming that > every sentence was going to contain the whole rebuttal. > > Okay, let's look at what he says: "On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or her actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also the operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice. However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded on the actual capability and not on the potential ability." The problem with this for me is that it leaves me in the dark about what it is to have the capabilities of free will, reason, and linguistic competence. It's totally unclear to me in what sense newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. He really needs to elaborate. I mean, Chomsky has this hypothesis that linguistic competence is somehow innate from birth, and only humans have it. It's a trendy hypothesis at the moment, but I've read a book which is highly critical of it. That might give one sense in which infants have the "capability" for linguistic competence and nonhuman animals don't. But we need to be clearer about what sort of scientific hypotheses have to be vindicated in order for this argument to work. I would say he is more raising questions about the argument from marginal cases than giving a rebuttal, outlining a scientific research programme which might undermine it. But he needs to get more specific about what kind of scientific results he's hoping for here. Perhaps Saugstad's thesis will be more illuminating about what exactly the proposal is. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
I read the rest of the essay. The position he defends is different
from mine in that he ascribes moral status to non-sentient living beings. Nevertheless on the whole it struck me as closer to my position than to yours. Note the remark on p. 34 that "if this is accepted, we have a prima facie moral duty to be vegetarians". Do you think it's offensive and presumptuous for him to say such a thing? |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 10, 5:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> upert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:12 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 6:26 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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. You've merely asserted your primitive >>>>>>>>>>>> belief that animals are entitled to it. Dutch put it >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly above. >>>>>>>>>>> See my reply to him. >>>>>>>>>> It was shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 exactly what you've said. >>>>>>>>>>> Then it should be possible to show where. >>>>>>>>>> You said you preferred to do maths rather than grow >>>>>>>>>> your own food >>>>>>>>> This is true but >>>>>>>> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine >>>>>>>> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering. >>>>>>> You really are a bit weird >>>>>> non sequitur, skirt-boy, and false. >>>>> Very sequitur, >>>> That's not even a sentence, skirt boy. >>> Of course not >> So learn how to write. >> >>>>>>> Yes, there is a "but". >>>>>> No, no "but", skirt-boy. >>>>> Instead of addressing the point >>>> No point. >>> There was a point >> No point. >> >>>>>> You want that cushy life of >>>>>> ease and comfort, and that's why you're too ****ing >>>>>> lazy to do the hard work needed to avoid killing >>>>>> animals for your food. >>>>> Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. >>>> Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. Yours >>>> does. >>> So it's been said many times >> And demonstrated equally many times. >> > > So where can I find Google is your friend. >>>>>>>> You prefer >>>>>>>> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of >>>>>>>> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals. >>>>>>> You think that I am committed to ideals >>>>>> Well, actually, skirt-boy, I've been telling you for a >>>>>> couple of years now that you don't really believe the >>>>>> "ar" bullshit. It's just feel-good crapola you blabber >>>>>> in order to try to get into some other delicate guy's >>>>>> pants. >>>>> The ideals I was referring to, >>>> "ar". >>> You just keep mindlessly uttering those two letters over and over >> Not mindlessly - based on what you've written. You >> went to great lengths in a thread with Derek to claim >> you aren't a consequentialist. > > That's right, So, you're a deontologist (you've said so, as well.) And you believe in animal "rights", not animal liberation. >> You've also gone to >> great lengths to show you're influenced more by Regan >> and Francione and that brand of ****wit than by >> Singer's brand of ****wit. >> > > Oh, I don't know about that. I do, you wheezy histrionic feminine windbag. It was liberally sprinkled throughout your early posts. >> I said quite a while ago your position is incoherent >> slop, and it quite obviously is. You can't coherently >> define or defend it. > > As discussed a few times It's incoherent slop, rupie, but it tends toward deontological "ar". >> You just seem to be a >> Bambi-loving animal nut, which is no surprise given >> that very feminine picture. You are ruled by emotion, >> and no amount of blabber about all the ethics crapola >> you've read can conceal that fact. >> > > You really are a joke non sequitur, skirt-boy >>>> It's shit - you don't really believe it. It's >>>> just something you say to get laid by some other skirt-boy. >>> *What* do you I say in order to get laid >> All the "ar" blabber. >> > > That's not an answer It is an answer, rupie skirt-boy. All the 'ar' blabber is just to get laid by other skirt-boy histrionic 'ar' fanatics. > Anyway, it's not a very good strategy for getting laid, is it? It's > pretty hard to find vegan girls. No, it isn't. Most 'vegans' are girls. The rest are queers like you. But you're not interested in the girls, rupie. >>>>>>>>>> (except you don't do maths, >>>>>>>>> This statement is incorrect, >>>>>>>> It is correct. >>>>>>> Ah, the combination >>>>>> The statemebt is correct. >>>>> Well, I would certainly >>>> The statement is correct. >>> You know >> We all know. >> > > Here is the paper I am working on at the moment. > > http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf Blabber. It sure as **** isn't going to get you that Field medal. >>>>>>>> You do <sneer> telemarketing (aka >>>>>>>> bothering people during their dinner), >>>>>>> We call businesses, >>>>>> You bother people who really don't want to talk to you. >>>>> Some of them don't want to talk to me. >>>> NO ONE wants to talk to a telemarketer, you leech. >>> you don't know anything about my job. >> I know you bother people doing it. It's an inherent >> part of the job. >> > > A small number of people express annoyance. They all do. >>>>>>>> and you do a >>>>>>>> little animal "rights" passivism. >>>>>>> I do some activism >>>>>> You blabber some passive bullshit here, rupie - that's >>>>>> all. >>>>> No, it's not. >>>> Yes, it's all. >>> Sometimes, >> ALL the time, skirt-boy. Passive blabbering of >> bullshit is all you do. >> > > I take it you know this Right. >>>>>> That's passivism. >>>>>>>>>> preferring >>>>>>>>>> telemarketing and your amateurish dilettante efforts at >>>>>>>>>> "ar".) >>>>>>>> Exactly. >>>>>>> As always >>>>>> Right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is why you're a hypocrite Rupe. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If I'm a hypocrite, then why aren't you as well? >>>>>>>>>>>> Because he doesn't believe animals are entitled to >>>>>>>>>>>> equal consideration, or that they have "rights" that he >>>>>>>>>>>> is violating, you stupid ****. >>>>>>>>>>> My beliefs do not entail that anything that I am doing is wrong. >>>>>>>>>> You are acting in willful disregard of your beliefs. >>>>>>>>>> You participate, *actively* (not "merely financially) >>>>>>>>>> in the violation of the animal "rights" in which you >>>>>>>>>> claim to believe. >>>>>>>>> What are these rights in which I claim to believe, >>>>>>>> You must, necessarily, believe animals have a right not >>>>>>>> to be killed for your mere comfort and convenience. >>>>>>> Why "must" I believe this? >>>>>> Because it's the minimum starting point for any sort of >>>>>> "ar", which you profess to believe. But see below >>>>>> about your not really believing in "ar" at all. >>>>> So according to your definition, believing in "ar" entails believing >>>>> in this. >>>> Yes, necessarily. And you claim to believe in "ar". >>> Could you please answer the question >> Done, many times over. >> > > Well Read it. >>>>>>>> Except...as we have seen, you really don't. You claim >>>>>>>> to believe in "ar", and so *necessarily* you must >>>>>>>> believe in at least that one "right", >>>>>>> I don't believe I've ever said that I "believe in AR" >>>>>> Not the literal words, perhaps, but you've said it in >>>>>> all that you have said. >>>>> If you can point me to something I've said which logically entails >>>>> that I am morally required >>>> You've professed belief in "ar", >>> Whatever that means. >> Yes, exactly. You've professed belief in it, > > In *what*? 'ar'. 'ar' bullshit, to be precise. >> but the >> incoherence of your apparent position leads one to >> wonder just what the hell you really mean. Apart from >> not putting animal bits in your mouth, it doesn't seem >> to mean a ****ing thing; certainly nothing concrete. >> >>>> and that requires you >>>> not to cause animals to die for your mere comfort and ease. >>>>>>>> but your behavior >>>>>>>> proves you really don't. You don't know *what* the >>>>>>>> **** you believe, rupie. You're just a mess. >>>>>>> There are plenty of areas of uncertainty in >>>>>> You're just a mess, skirt-boy. >>>>> Let's talk about the foundations of >>>> You're just a total mess, skirt-boy. >>> Whatever. >> No, not "whatever", skirt-boy - a mess. An incoherent, >> gooey, hyper-emotional mess. >> > > Why don't you Gooey, incohere, hyper-emotional mess, skirt-boy. That's what you are. >>>>>>>>>> You are a hypocrite; Dutch is not. >>>>>>>> So...we're clear on this, then. >>>>>>> It's false. >>>>>> It is true. >>>>> An assertion isn't an argument. >>>> The truth has already been established. >>> You've never stated which moral belief I have expressed a commitment >>> to >> That killing animals is wrong. >> > > No-one advocates this as an exceptionless Not a word. > rule, certainly I don't. No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, you fatuous ****, believe animals have "rights". >>>>>>>>>>>> Your participation in commercial food markets violates >>>>>>>>>>>> those rights. >>>>>>>>>>> You claim that, by buying plant-based food from the usual commercial >>>>>>>>>>> channels, I am violating rights which I believe animals to have. >>>>>>>>>> You are. >>>>>> QED >> So. > > "Quod erat demonstrandum" Right. |
|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
|
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>> [..] > >>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled > >>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while > >>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view. > >>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade, > >>>>>> No. > >>>>>>> that is when > >>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending. > >>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more > >>>>>> condescending than me. > >>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would > >>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being > >>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I > >>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm > >>>>> not condescending. > >>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you > >>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6 > >>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to > >>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try > >>> to put people down for the way they look. > >> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear. > > > So this is an actual claim > > The picture speaks for itself. > Just answer the question, Ball, please. I find it entertaining when make a monkey or yourself. Do I have sex with men or don't I? > > > > > >>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of > >>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no > >>>>>>> adequate response to. > >>>>>> No, you don't. > >>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar > >>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions > >>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks. > >>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you > >>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being. > >>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to > >>>>> be more "polite". > >>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have, > >>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant > >>>> little bitch. > >>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me. > >> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable. > > > It is not reasonable. > > It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish > has been granted. > You're not well. > >>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical. > >> No. > > > You think that > > We all do. You really have no clue about how sensible people would view these conversations, do you, Ball? I relate these conversations to lots of people, and they all think you people are nutcases. No sensible person reading this newsgroup would conclude that I am the one who has a problem with arrogance. I may be condescending and arrogant in the judgement of you and Dutch, but your judgement about that matter is worthless. Sensible people are going to draw a different conclusion. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| "Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
| + Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + | General Cooking | |||
| The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate | Vegan | |||
![Dutch[_2_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
