Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment. > > http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf "...we describe an axiomatizable theory..." "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable You pompous fat ****. |
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, 12:21 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 There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it 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. >> > > You're not well. Quite well, thanks. You ask for the treatment you receive. >>>>> 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 I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy. |
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, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i13g20 00prf.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 > > Google is your friend. > You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is contrary to my professed values. When I ask you to specify which of my professed values I do not act in accordance with, you talk meaningless blabber. > >>>>>>>> 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. > I'm a deontologist in the sense that I think that there are some constraints on how we should promote the good. I've said that many, many times over the years. The philosopher to whom my views are closest is David DeGrazia, I've made that clear many times as well. > >> 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 may have said things that gave that impression and in one sense it's true, you boring lame prat who is so insecure about his masculinity that he has to act like a twelve-year-old in public. However, I have a lot of respect for Singer's work and I take consequentialism seriously. As I say, DeGrazia is my main influence, as I think should have been reasonably clear to anyone who was listening from day one. > >> 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". > Your political philosophy is a similar mixture of deontological and consequentialist ideas. And there's nothing wrong with that. > >> 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 > Sequitur very much, boring childish loser. > >>>> 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. No, it's not. It doesn't convey what you're talking about. Which beliefs of mine count as AR blabber? > 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. Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW, the sexes are evenly distributed. The director, Mark Pearson, is ***, but all the activists are straight, as far as I know. I think that one of the girls, who has now moved to Melbourne, is bisexual. > But you're not interested in the > girls, rupie. Yes, folks, I think we finally have it: a public commitment on the issue of my sexuality. Thanks, Ball, this is great. And below you pretend you're competent to comment on the quality of my paper, which is even funnier. I'm not interested in girls, I'm a medicore mathematician, I'm going to be a career telemarketer, I don't do any mathematical research or political activism. All these things Johnny Ball is convinced he knows for facts. Oh, and by the way, I'm the one who is psychotic. What stories are you going to make up about me next, Ball? Please keep it up, it is so amusing. > > >>>>>>>>>> (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. > Pfffft. You really would have a clue, wouldn't you, Ball? You have as much hope of evaluating the quality of that paper as you would if it were written in Chinese. Whatever level of talent that paper shows, it represents a level of mathematical knowledge and creativity which you could never possibly hope to achieve, no matter how hard and long you studied. It might as well be Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem for all the sense it makes to you. Tell us all about your academic achievements, Ball. Where can I read your papers? Thanks for the entertainment. That was a real gem. > >>>>>>>> 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. > The list gets bigger and bigger. I'm not interested in girls, I'm a mediocre mathematician, I don't do any research or political activism, I'm going to be a career telemarketer, and everyone I speak to on the phone in my job expresses annoyance with me. And I'm psychotic and Johnny Ball isn't. Amazing, how much Ball knows about me. > >>>>>>>> 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. > As I say, Ball, it's amazing how much you know. Are you perhaps clairvoyant? Or maybe omniscient? Are you the Messiah? > >>>>>> 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. > Read what? The new thread? I did. I replied to 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. > That's not an answer. > >> 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. > Yes, it is. It's listed on dictionary.com as an adjective. I'll check the Oxford Dictionary when I get home if you like. Why wouldn't it be a word? > > rule, certainly I don't. > > No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy > exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. > What's incoherent about it? Why is your position more coherent? You think there are some constraints on what we may do to animals, no? Why is the place where you have chosen to drawn the line so overwhelming more "coherent" than the place where I have chosen to draw it? And why aren't you doing the same thing when you make the remark "Some things don't lend themselves to markets"? Isn't that making an arbitrary exception? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. I must try this trick in a maths paper sometime, Ball. Just state a proposition and then write "QED". I wonder how seriously people will take me. |
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, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> 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 have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > contrary to my professed values. I have. So have Dutch and Chico. You participate in processes that slaughter animals. This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> > > I'm a deontologist You profess to believe in 'ar'. You don't /really/ believe it, of course, as your rights-violating behavior shows. >>>> 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 may have said things that You have said - not "may" have said - that show you profess to believe in 'ar'. It's bullshit, of course, as your rights-violating behavior shows. >>>> 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". >> > > Your political philosophy is Your animal-ethics beliefs are slop - utterly incoherent slop. >>>> 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 >> > > Sequitur very much That isn't even English, skirt-boy. Your earlier comments were non sequitur. >>>>>> 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. > > No, it's not. It is, 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. > > Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW Mostly girls, and the rest queers. >> But you're not interested in the >> girls, rupie. > > Yes, folks, I think we finally have it: rupie is a queer. >>>>>>>>>>>> (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. >> > > Pfffft. That's the sound of the air going out of your tiny hope of winning the 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. >> > > The list gets bigger and bigger. Right! >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> > > As I say, No, as *I* say, skirt-boy: passive blabbering of 'ar' dogma 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. >>> Well >> Read it. >> > > Read what? The answers. >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> > > That's not an answer. It certainly is. The fatuous, lacking-seriousness question was, "in *what*" do you believe? I supplied the answer: you believe in 'ar' bullshit. >>>> 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. Well, then! >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> > > Yes, it is. It isn't. That's why my word processor underlined it: as a misspelled or non-existent word. >>> rule, certainly I don't. >> No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy >> exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. >> > > What's incoherent about it? There's no coherent theory behind it. It's just "rupie's comfort and ease", with no standards whatever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > I must try this Heh heh heh... |
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, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i13g 2000prf.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 > >> Google is your friend. > > > You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > > contrary to my professed values. > > I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. Now for your next point. > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > I'm a deontologist > > You profess to believe in 'ar'. You don't /really/ > believe it, of course, as your rights-violating > behavior shows. > I believe that there are some constraints on how we should behave, but I don't think my behaviour violates any of those constraints. If *you* think that there is an obligation to do everything possible to avoid buying products whose production caused some harm, fine, go ahead and do it. If you want to try and convince me, I'll listen. I do not currently accept this position, and I have never said anything which logically entails that it should be accepted. I don't worry about whether you are doing everything that your statements logically entail you should do. I leave it to you to worry about that. Instead of putting so much energy into trying to convince me that I'm failing to do something which my statements logically entail that I should do, why don't you use this newsgroup what it's actually for, namely, discussing animal ethics? Or better yet, go out there and do something to make the world a better place. There's lots of work to be done. > >>>> 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 may have said things that > > You have said - not "may" have said - that show you > profess to believe in 'ar'. It's bullshit, of course, > as your rights-violating behavior shows. > And you *still* haven't demonstrated that anything I've said entails that I'm violating any rights. Same old, same old... > >>>> 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". > > > Your political philosophy is > > Your animal-ethics beliefs are slop - utterly > incoherent slop. > Why are they incoherent? > >>>> 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 > > > Sequitur very much > > That isn't even English, skirt-boy. > > Your earlier comments were non sequitur. > No, they were a rational response to your usual clowning. > >>>>>> 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. > > > No, it's not. > > It is, 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. > > > Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW > > Mostly girls, and the rest queers. > Drew - straight man Louis and Nona - straight couple, they recently had a baby Angie - straight girl Andrea - straight girl Siobhan - straight girl Mauro and Tully - straight couple David - straight man Rupert - straight man Tammy - straight girl Jackie - straight girl Narelle - straight girl I think I've covered the regulars. 5 straight guys and 8 straight girls. "Mostly girls", fair enough. Everyone straight, as far as I know. > >> But you're not interested in the > >> girls, rupie. > > > Yes, folks, I think we finally have it: > > rupie is a queer. > Thank you for the entertainment, you funny clown. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (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. > > > Pfffft. > > That's the sound of the air going out of your tiny hope > of winning the Field medal. > Yeah, you're right, Ball. When you, who may or may not be able to remember first-year calculus, made that utterly ignorant comment about my paper, that really had a big impact on my assessment of my chances of winning the Fields Medal. Why are you so obsessed with the issue of whether I'll win the Fields Medal, anyway? I mean, I have my doubts that you'll win the Nobel Prize for Economics, but I don't regard pointing this out as an effective way of cutting you down to size. > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > The list gets bigger and bigger. > > Right! > Thanks for the predictable and entertaining response, clown. > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > As I say, > > No, as *I* say, skirt-boy: passive blabbering of 'ar' > dogma is all you do. > Yes, you say lots of things and they're all very funny. > >>>>>>>> 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. > > > Read what? > > The answers. > Where are they? > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > That's not an answer. > > It certainly is. The fatuous, lacking-seriousness > question was, "in *what*" do you believe? I supplied > the answer: you believe in 'ar' bullshit. > Yawn. > >>>> 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. > > Well, then! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > Yes, it is. > > It isn't. That's why my word processor underlined it: > as a misspelled or non-existent word. > Well, you know, Ball, I can't say I'm utterly fascinated by this issue, but I think there's a chance you might be wrong. Dictionary.com listed it as a word. I'll have a look in the Oxford Dictionary when I get home. > >>> rule, certainly I don't. > >> No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy > >> exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. > > > What's incoherent about it? > > There's no coherent theory behind it. It's just > "rupie's comfort and ease", with no standards whatever. > All positions on this issue have some vagueness in their foundations. Your political philosophy certainly has a lot of vagueness in its foundations. Yes, it would be nice to say more about what counts as "reasonable" and what doesn't and why. But everyone has that problem. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > I must try this > > Heh heh heh... |
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 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. Tell you what? > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it is completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry from "equal consideration". > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't intersect. If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of likelihood that they will intersect. >You too hold > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. > It's pretty bloody > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a > thick skull. He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. And when those are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. > 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. Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. gimmee details. >> > 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? It wouldn't be produced that way in this reality, but if it was, in some catastrophic sci-fi-like reality, then the whole regime of rights as we know them would no longer apply. Killing innocent humans would become the norm as it is with animals now, and would be acceptable. >> > 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. Why? Why would anyone care about the thoughts of someone who has intellectualized coming to the rescue of an animal in that situation to the point where they think it's worth saying "we may forcibly intervene"? What planet do both of you live on? Of course you intervene if you can, by any means available. >> > 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. Then why don't I know what you believe? > I don't take the view that you've shown that > your position is more reasonable. I don't know what your position is. You usually quote the positions of other people or just meander on saying nothing.. > >> >> 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. That doesn't make sense. > >> > 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. Not many people who think at all about these things do. > 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. I have stated my position clearly along with the basic rationale for it. You no doubt can't recall any of that. If I restate it you will forget it again. > >> > 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. You don't HAVE a ****ing position. All you do is talk in circles and say nothing like you just spent two paragraphs doing. It's ****ing hilarious! >> >> >> 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. Most intelligent people have the good sense to tailor their style of interaction to their audience. I don't speak to my wife the way I do when I'm with my sports fan pals. I wouldn't speak to women I was interested in the way I speak to idiots on the internet. You strike me as someone who mumbles on about moral theories no matter who is listening. [..] |
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 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. Great! Well written isn't it? > 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. I thought he explained it very well on page 19. "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. 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." |
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 8, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] > 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. I don't see what is mysterious about those capabilities, they are apparent when they manifest. > It's totally unclear to me in what sense > newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. We know from experience that newborn infants have them because we have observed many, to put it mildly, mature and develop them into operative abilities, while at the same time we have yet to witness a nonhuman animal do so. > 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. The science is in the laboratory of everyday life. Observations of countless billions of animals and humans leads to this inescapable conclusion. 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. There is no further "research" necessary, all that was needed was to propose the distinction between the notions of capability and ability and test the idea for plausibility. It turns out that it is completely plausible and descriptive of the way we think about rights. It even refutes the old saw "what if non-human aliens landed.." When you combine that with the idea that animals are accorded consideration based upon a wide range of levels of sentience eariler in the essay we have a comprehensive way to understand our moral thinking. I would submit that even "Animal Liberation" type thinking is not totally inconsistent with this approach, although the AMC is 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
"Rupert" > wrote
>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? I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one necessarily causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" true that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically true the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go there though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw the line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between causing harm and living a happy productive life? |
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: > > "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 ****. No "moral personhood" in sight, either in inter-species or human relationships. So according to Dutch you're disqualified from moral consideration and rights. lol. The Adventures of Goo.. (goo, baby goo and dh@).. http://www.ineedtostopsoon.com/wp-co...o_wb_cloud.jpg |
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, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > > > > 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. > > Tell you what? > You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes harm to animals. You also apparently think that it is somehow harder for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion. I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". Well, look, I'll tell you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a look. Okay? > > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a > > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, > > Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it is > completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry from > "equal consideration". > Yes, it is. > > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power > > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. > > Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't intersect. > If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of > likelihood that they will intersect. > Exactly. > >You too hold > > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. > > Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the > details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. > I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics, but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point. > > It's pretty bloody > > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a > > thick skull. > > He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are > skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make his case. It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies with me, save your breath). > And when those > are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. > Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and reasonable. But that's not the approach that any of you are taking. You all think you already understand my position well enough to know that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration. Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views about whether that's an adequate argument. > > 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. > > Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. gimmee > details. > Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it. I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think. I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when I do that it's condescending. Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it. Criticize the arguments, not the person. > > > > > >> > 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? > > It wouldn't be produced that way in this reality, but if it was, in some > catastrophic sci-fi-like reality, then the whole regime of rights as we know > them would no longer apply. Killing innocent humans would become the norm as > it is with animals now, and would be acceptable. > Right. Well, there you go. But would you agree that there would still be an obligation to make some effort, "every reasonable effort" if I dare use such a vague phrase, to minimize the harm done? This is why I say my position is consistent with equal consideration. If we would be prepared to do the same things to humans in relevantly similar circumstances, then I say that's consistent with equal consideration. > >> > 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. > > Why? Why would anyone care about the thoughts of someone who has > intellectualized coming to the rescue of an animal in that situation to the > point where they think it's worth saying "we may forcibly intervene"? What > planet do both of you live on? Of course you intervene if you can, by any > means available. > Some would say the same thing about rescuing battery hens and lab animals, but that's a bit more controversial. The point is that everyone agrees that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals. Even Tibor Machan agrees, and he's an extremely strong critic of animal rights. Everyone says there are some constraints, everyone says the constraints fall short of the point where we should boycott all commercial agriculture. So the question is where do you draw the line. Now, you and Ball apparently think that for some reason I've committed myself to saying I have to boycott all commercial agriculture. Ball's really done nothing at all by way of explaining why he thinks that. I can guess what you're going to say, I've been talking about equal consideration. Well, I'll try to say something a bit more articulate about that. But, really, if you people are going to behave towards me in the way that you do I think you need to do a bit more by way of making a case that I've made such a commitment. Everyone else is allowed to say some ways of treating animals are wrong without being called a hypocrite for not growing all their own food. But I get told I'm self-serving and not serious about ethics. I am trying to explain why I think this is such a farce. > >> > 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. > > Then why don't I know what you believe? > I'm not sure. I'll try and make it clearer if you like. Just have respect for the fact that I'm making a good faith effort to have a serious conversation with you, and cut out the comments about me being a "sleazy sophist" and engaging in "verbal tap-dancing". Because whatever's going wrong, it's not that. I've had lots of conversations with people about all sorts of issues throughout my adult life and no- one else has formed that impression of me. I've given a talk about these issues at a conference and I get paid to lecture about these issues at Sydney University. We may be having trouble communicating, for whatever reason, but that's no reason for you to be rude. If you can't bring yourself to assume good faith, then I won't bother. > > I don't take the view that you've shown that > > your position is more reasonable. > > I don't know what your position is. You usually quote the positions of other > people or just meander on saying nothing.. > All right, well, I'll try to be more articulate by way of presenting my position. > > > > > > > >> >> 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. > > That doesn't make sense. > Well, never mind, it doesn't really matter. Ball thinks my position is an "incoherent slop", he'll probably stick to that view no matter what. I'll try to convey my position to you more clearly and you can judge the matter for yourself. > > > >> > 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. > > Not many people who think at all about these things do. > Quite. Mind you, we don't get much acknowledgement of that point from the other antis. Another point worth making is that there's not much hope for change without some consumer initiative. I would have thought these were the most important points to make in a discussion of ethical vegetarianism. Unfortunately, we seem to spend most of our time discussing who's a hypocrite and who's entitled to pass judgement on others. > > 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. > > I have stated my position clearly along with the basic rationale for it. Yes, I know. So have I. > You > no doubt can't recall any of that. If I restate it you will forget it again. > No, I know what your position is. > > > > > > > >> > 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. > > You don't HAVE a ****ing position. All you do is talk in circles and say > nothing like you just spent two paragraphs doing. It's ****ing hilarious! > Jolly good. Glad you're entertained. This is an example of not assuming good faith, which I want you to cut out if I'm going to make further efforts to explain my position. > > > > > >> >> >> 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. > > Most intelligent people have the good sense to tailor their style of > interaction to their audience. Yes, of course I know that perfectly well. Yet for some reason you appear to believe that I don't have the good sense to do that. I'm not clear why. The comment you're replying to was just an idle piece of sarcasm in response to your cheap shot. Of course I wasn't suggesting that you behave in your everyday life the way you behave on usenet. You do it on usenet because it has a lower cost, the social sanctions people can impose on you are not that costly. > I don't speak to my wife the way I do when > I'm with my sports fan pals. I wouldn't speak to women I was interested in > the way I speak to idiots on the internet. Delighted to hear it. I could have worked this out for myself, actually. > You strike me as someone who > mumbles on about moral theories no matter who is listening. > Very interesting. Well, look, you can make speculations about my life when I'm not on the internet if you like, but you might want to consider the fact that you really don't know anything about it, any more than I know anything about your life off the internet. So I'll be taking any advice you give me about my social life with a pinch of salt. |
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, 6:46 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > On Jul 8, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > > > > > > > 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. > > I don't see what is mysterious about those capabilities, they are apparent > when they manifest. > > > It's totally unclear to me in what sense > > newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. > > We know from experience that newborn infants have them because we have > observed many, to put it mildly, mature and develop them into operative > abilities, while at the same time we have yet to witness a nonhuman animal > do so. > He draws a distinction between a capability and a potential ability. I would like to be clearer what this distinction is, and why the phenomena you point out are evidence for capability rather than potential ability. > > 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. > > The science is in the laboratory of everyday life. Observations of countless > billions of animals and humans leads to this inescapable conclusion. > I'm still lost on what you mean by "capability". I mean, you say we know they're present when they manifest, but when that's not the case how do we go about deciding? When in our fetal development do we first get these "capabilities"? Can we ever lose them, apart from by death? Do all humans have them? If *all* humans have them, then what exactly are the grounds for thinking no nonhumans have them? What would be the criteria for answering such questions? > 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. > > There is no further "research" necessary, all that was needed was to propose > the distinction between the notions of capability and ability and test the > idea for plausibility. It turns out that it is completely plausible and > descriptive of the way we think about rights. It even refutes the old saw > "what if non-human aliens landed.." When you combine that with the idea that > animals are accorded consideration based upon a wide range of levels of > sentience eariler in the essay we have a comprehensive way to understand our > moral thinking. I would submit that even "Animal Liberation" type thinking > is not totally inconsistent with this approach, although the AMC is not.- 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 the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> 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 have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is >>> contrary to my professed values. >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. >> >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. >> > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods you buy caused animal deaths in their production. You do this *UNNECESSARILY*. It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive fact like a car being blue. This is something you *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them incriminating to you. It's pretty obvious why you keep trying to downplay it and minimize it, rupie. It is morally damning to your claims. That word "merely" is clearly implied by your tracks-covering attempt to call it "financial" support; what you clearly are trying to call it is "MERELY financial" support, and you just can't do it - I don't let you. >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> I'm a deontologist >> You profess to believe in 'ar'. You don't /really/ >> believe it, of course, as your rights-violating >> behavior shows. >> > > I believe that there are You believe in 'ar', rupie. > If *you* think that there is an obligation to do everything possible > to avoid buying products whose production caused some harm, YOU are morally obliged to believe that, rupie, if you believe in 'ar', as you profess to believe. But you don't have any coherent moral beliefs about this crap at all. It's nothing but feel-good-ism, and you draw the line with no meaningful moral standards at all - it is based purely on what is convenient and pleasant for you. >>>>>> 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 may have said things that >> You have said - not "may" have said - that show you >> profess to believe in 'ar'. It's bullshit, of course, >> as your rights-violating behavior shows. >> > > And you *still* haven't demonstrated that anything I've said entails > that I'm violating any rights. Yes, rupie, I have. If you believe in animal 'rights', as you profess to do, then you *must* at least believe in their 'right' not to be killed casually and with no consequences. But your behavior shows you don't really believe that. You just believe in exalting yourself, that's all. The only thing you do is to refrain from eating animal bits, and that, as we have seen, is nothing but an empty symbolic gesture based wholly on a logical fallacy. >>>>>> 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". >>> Your political philosophy is >> Your animal-ethics beliefs are slop - utterly >> incoherent slop. >> > > Why are they incoherent? Already explained, time-wasting skirt-boy. >>>>>> 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 >>> Sequitur very much >> That isn't even English, skirt-boy. >> >> Your earlier comments were non sequitur. >> > > No, they were a rational response No, they were entirely irrational, as well as non sequitur. >>>>>>>> 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. >>> No, it's not. >> It is, 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. >>> Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW >> Mostly girls, and the rest queers. >> > > Drew - straight man > Louis and Nona - straight couple, they recently had a baby > Angie - straight girl > Andrea - straight girl > Siobhan - straight girl > Mauro and Tully - straight couple > David - straight man > Rupert - straight man > Tammy - straight girl > Jackie - straight girl > Narelle - straight girl No one is going to take your word for the sexual orientation of the boys. As I said: more girls. 'ar' is, fundamentally, a girlie thing. This is not surprising, as it is based entirely on girlish sentimentality about animals. Boys like you who plug into 'ar' are very girlish. It's also a very urban thing, hence the usual designation of 'ar' passivists as clueless urbanites. You just don't know ****-all about farming and animals. >>>> But you're not interested in the >>>> girls, rupie. >>> Yes, folks, I think we finally have it: >> rupie is a queer. >> > > Thank you No problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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. >>> Pfffft. >> That's the sound of the air going out of your tiny hope >> of winning the Field medal. >> > > Yeah, you're right I 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. >>>>> A small number of people express annoyance. >>>> They all do. >>> The list gets bigger and bigger. >> Right! >> > > Thanks No problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> As I say, >> No, as *I* say, skirt-boy: passive blabbering of 'ar' >> dogma is all you do. >> > > Yes, you say lots of things and ....and they're accurate. >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> Read what? >> The answers. >> > > Where are they? In the newsgroups. Use Google. > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> That's not an answer. >> It certainly is. The fatuous, lacking-seriousness >> question was, "in *what*" do you believe? I supplied >> the answer: you believe in 'ar' bullshit. >> > > Yawn. Unpersuasive. You believe in 'ar' bullshit...except you don't; you merely like to say you do, to exalt yourself. 'ar' is entirely about its wishy-washy proponents' sense of ego. >>>>>> 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, incoherent, hyper-emotional mess, skirt-boy. >>>> That's what you are. >> Well, then! !! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> Yes, it is. >> It isn't. That's why my word processor underlined it: >> as a misspelled or non-existent word. >> > > Well, you know, I can't say I'm utterly fascinated by this > issue I'm surprised, given your ego and arrogance. >>>>> rule, certainly I don't. >>>> No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy >>>> exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. >>> What's incoherent about it? >> There's no coherent theory behind it. It's just >> "rupie's comfort and ease", with no standards whatever. >> > > All positions on this issue have some vagueness in their foundations. "Some"? Shit-****ing-damn, rupie - there's NOTHING BUT mushiness and vagueness to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> I must try this >> Heh heh heh... Haw haw haw haw haw! |
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: >>> "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 ****. > > No "moral personhood" in sight, Monkeys? No, indeed they don't. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ps.com... > On Jul 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Tell you what? >> > > You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely > everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes > harm to animals. You also apparently think that it is somehow harder > for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can > spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion. > > I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support > for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". Well, look, I'll tell > you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up > with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a > look. Okay? > >> > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a >> > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, >> >> Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it >> is >> completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry >> from >> "equal consideration". >> > > Yes, it is. > >> > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power >> > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. >> >> Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't >> intersect. >> If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of >> likelihood that they will intersect. >> > > Exactly. > >> >You too hold >> > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. >> >> Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the >> details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. >> > > I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics, > but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point. > >> > It's pretty bloody >> > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a >> > thick skull. >> >> He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are >> skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. > > Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of > Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's > read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to > speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that > I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my > position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make > his case. > > It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've > made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to > communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies > with me, save your breath). > >> And when those >> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. >> > > Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on > what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I > pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and > reasonable. But that's not the approach that any of you are taking. > You all think you already understand my position well enough to know > that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration. > Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a > demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views > about whether that's an adequate argument. > >> > 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. >> >> Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. >> gimmee >> details. >> > > Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm > not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good > faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it. > I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've > formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and > uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think. > > I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's > the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say > anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I > wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was > true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just > analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when > I do that it's condescending. > > Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is > taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If > you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or > inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it. > Criticize the arguments, not the person. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> It wouldn't be produced that way in this reality, but if it was, in some >> catastrophic sci-fi-like reality, then the whole regime of rights as we >> know >> them would no longer apply. Killing innocent humans would become the norm >> as >> it is with animals now, and would be acceptable. >> > > Right. Well, there you go. But would you agree that there would still > be an obligation to make some effort, "every reasonable effort" if I > dare use such a vague phrase, to minimize the harm done? It's difficult to say, it's a totally hypothetical scenario. In the case of animals, in many cases the goal is to kill as many as possible. Deaths from harvesting, ploughing or herbicides are purely collateral, but many pesticide deaths are as deliberate as any slaughterhouse death. We kill them for good reason. > This is why I say my position is consistent with equal consideration. > If we would be prepared to do the same things to humans in relevantly > similar circumstances, then I say that's consistent with equal > consideration. If those circumstances only exist in far out hypothetical scenarios what is the purpose? >> >> > 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. >> >> Why? Why would anyone care about the thoughts of someone who has >> intellectualized coming to the rescue of an animal in that situation to >> the >> point where they think it's worth saying "we may forcibly intervene"? >> What >> planet do both of you live on? Of course you intervene if you can, by any >> means available. >> > > Some would say the same thing about rescuing battery hens and lab > animals, but that's a bit more controversial. It's also completely different. Those animals are kept for ostensibly moral reasons, to provide food or to benefit medicine. The first can be reformed by consumer pressure, and that seems to be happening, and the second has more to do with philosophical differences than suffering. Setting a cat on fire is gratuitous violence. > The point is that everyone agrees that there are some constraints on > how we should treat animals. Even Tibor Machan agrees, and he's an > extremely strong critic of animal rights. That's what I said. > Everyone says there are some > constraints, everyone says the constraints fall short of the point > where we should boycott all commercial agriculture. So the question is > where do you draw the line. That depends on the fundamental position you take with regard to harming animals for our benefit. I can only judge if your line is in a reasonable place if you take a clear position on that and it turns out to be consistent with your stated beliefs about harming animals for our comfort and convenience. > Now, you and Ball apparently think that > for some reason I've committed myself to saying I have to boycott all > commercial agriculture. Ball's really done nothing at all by way of > explaining why he thinks that. I can guess what you're going to say, > I've been talking about equal consideration. Well, I'll try to say > something a bit more articulate about that. But, really, if you people > are going to behave towards me in the way that you do I think you need > to do a bit more by way of making a case that I've made such a > commitment. Everyone else is allowed to say some ways of treating > animals are wrong without being called a hypocrite for not growing all > their own food. But I get told I'm self-serving and not serious about > ethics. I am trying to explain why I think this is such a farce. Yeah, OK, but you could have taken those 100 words and instead of complaining about being misunderstood, clarified your position on harming animals for our benefit. > >> >> > 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. >> >> Then why don't I know what you believe? >> > > I'm not sure. I'll try and make it clearer if you like. Just have > respect for the fact that I'm making a good faith effort to have a > serious conversation with you, and cut out the comments about me being > a "sleazy sophist" and engaging in "verbal tap-dancing". Because > whatever's going wrong, it's not that. I've had lots of conversations > with people about all sorts of issues throughout my adult life and no- > one else has formed that impression of me. I've given a talk about > these issues at a conference and I get paid to lecture about these > issues at Sydney University. We may be having trouble communicating, > for whatever reason, but that's no reason for you to be rude. If you > can't bring yourself to assume good faith, then I won't bother. I'm not assuming bad faith, I have concluded that your position is so unclear that it defies articulation. I have concluded that the principles you aspire to are so unrealistic and so out of step with the reality of everyday life that it has set up an untenable dichotomy in you, a cognitive dissonance that is blocking your progression towards the next step in self-discovery. I am not saying this to be demeaning, I am trying to help you understand your difficulty in articulating your position. >> > I don't take the view that you've shown that >> > your position is more reasonable. >> >> I don't know what your position is. You usually quote the positions of >> other >> people or just meander on saying nothing.. >> > > All right, well, I'll try to be more articulate by way of presenting > my position. I look forward to it. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> That doesn't make sense. >> > > Well, never mind, it doesn't really matter. Ball thinks my position is > an "incoherent slop", he'll probably stick to that view no matter > what. I'll try to convey my position to you more clearly and you can > judge the matter for yourself. Good plan. [..] |
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 12, 6:46 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > On Jul 8, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> I don't see what is mysterious about those capabilities, they are >> apparent >> when they manifest. >> >> > It's totally unclear to me in what sense >> > newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. >> >> We know from experience that newborn infants have them because we have >> observed many, to put it mildly, mature and develop them into operative >> abilities, while at the same time we have yet to witness a nonhuman >> animal >> do so. >> > > He draws a distinction between a capability and a potential ability. I > would like to be clearer what this distinction is, and why the > phenomena you point out are evidence for capability rather than > potential ability. Because adult non-humans have never demonstrated the abilities, therefore we can't assume that they have the capabilities, whereas human infants are rightly assumed to have the inherent capabilities since, barring mishap, they always develop the abilities. >> > 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. >> >> The science is in the laboratory of everyday life. Observations of >> countless >> billions of animals and humans leads to this inescapable conclusion. >> > > I'm still lost on what you mean by "capability". An apple seed has the capability to one day grow apples, a carrot seed does not. > I mean, you say we > know they're present when they manifest, but when that's not the case > how do we go about deciding? When in our fetal development do we first > get these "capabilities"? They are inherent in the DNA of our species, they exist at conception. > Can we ever lose them, apart from by death? Not completely. > Do all humans have them? I think that a brain is required, as he says in the essay. > If *all* humans have them, then what exactly > are the grounds for thinking no nonhumans have them? No non-humans have ever exhibited the abilities, so it would be foolish to assume that they have the capabilities. > What would be the > criteria for answering such questions? Seems like common sense to me. > >> 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. >> >> There is no further "research" necessary, all that was needed was to >> propose >> the distinction between the notions of capability and ability and test >> the >> idea for plausibility. It turns out that it is completely plausible and >> descriptive of the way we think about rights. It even refutes the old saw >> "what if non-human aliens landed.." When you combine that with the idea >> that >> animals are accorded consideration based upon a wide range of levels of >> sentience eariler in the essay we have a comprehensive way to understand >> our >> moral thinking. I would submit that even "Animal Liberation" type >> thinking >> is not totally inconsistent with this approach, although the AMC is not.- >> 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 13, 4:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 6:46 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > On Jul 8, 6:30 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> [..] > > >> > 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. > > >> I don't see what is mysterious about those capabilities, they are > >> apparent > >> when they manifest. > > >> > It's totally unclear to me in what sense > >> > newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. > > >> We know from experience that newborn infants have them because we have > >> observed many, to put it mildly, mature and develop them into operative > >> abilities, while at the same time we have yet to witness a nonhuman > >> animal > >> do so. > > > He draws a distinction between a capability and a potential ability. I > > would like to be clearer what this distinction is, and why the > > phenomena you point out are evidence for capability rather than > > potential ability. > > Because adult non-humans have never demonstrated the abilities, therefore we > can't assume that they have the capabilities, whereas human infants are > rightly assumed to have the inherent capabilities since, barring mishap, > they always develop the abilities. > Would any further scientific discoveries cause us to re-assess either of these two judgements? I mean, is this a conjecture we make about certain structures being present in the brain, or something of that sort? See, when you say that no further scientific research is necessary to settle the question of who has these capabilities and who doesn't, I find that a bit puzzling. Do you say we can settle the question of when I first developed these capabilities without doing any further scientific research. I mean, once upon a time there was a sperm and an egg. If you have a sperm and an egg in the laboratory and you do the right procedure, then barring mishap you will end up with a being with the abilities in question. (At the moment there is quite a high probability that the embryo won't implant in the womb, but that may change in the future and it's covered by "barring mishap". And you may say that a lot of intervention is needed to get the being with the abilities, but that's also true when you're bringing up a baby). I mean, we still don't know very much about how brains develop. I can infer from everyday observations that infants have conscious experiences. But can I really infer from everyday observations that infants have the capability for reason, free will, and linguistic competence? What, exactly, entitles me to infer that which doesn't also entitle me to infer that a fetus at 10 weeks gestation has such a capability, or a pair consisting of a sperm and an egg has such a capability? > >> > 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. > > >> The science is in the laboratory of everyday life. Observations of > >> countless > >> billions of animals and humans leads to this inescapable conclusion. > > > I'm still lost on what you mean by "capability". > > An apple seed has the capability to one day grow apples, a carrot seed does > not. > > > I mean, you say we > > know they're present when they manifest, but when that's not the case > > how do we go about deciding? When in our fetal development do we first > > get these "capabilities"? > > They are inherent in the DNA of our species, they exist at conception. > So your position is tied to a view that we first acquire full moral status at conception? > > Can we ever lose them, apart from by death? > > Not completely. > You said being born without a brain meant you didn't have the capability. Now, I don't know exactly what causes anencephaly. It may be that, when an infant is born anencephalic, it was once a conceptus just like the conceptus that you or I once were, but something went awry in the process of development. So if you and I had the capabilities at conception, what are we to say about the anencephalic infant? Did it have the capabilities at conception and then lose them during its development? Anyway, I was going to say it's conceivable that the brain might be completely destroyed and yet you might still be alive. Would that be one example of losing the capabilities without dying? And what about when there is a permanent loss of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, so that there is no prospect of ever regaining consciousness, as sometimes happens? Anyway, these are just side-issues. > > Do all humans have them? > > I think that a brain is required, as he says in the essay. > > > If *all* humans have them, then what exactly > > are the grounds for thinking no nonhumans have them? > > No non-humans have ever exhibited the abilities, so it would be foolish to > assume that they have the capabilities. > > > What would be the > > criteria for answering such questions? > > Seems like common sense to me. > Well, it doesn't seem like common sense to me that all humans who have a brain have uniquely human capabilities. That seems to me like the sort of thing that has to be resolved by scientific investigation. I mean, you're talking about the notion of "capability" as though it were transparent. I started by conjecturing it might be something to do with structures in the brain, you seem to want to say it's something to do with genetic code, but on the other hand you do think a brain is required. And you seem to be assuming that there's no need to clarify this further, it's obvious that we all know what is meant by "capability" and we can all infer from everyday observations alone that all humans have these capabilities. I don't think a scientist would find this very satisfactory. You also seem to be assuming that Saugstad means the same thing as you by "capability" and you don't need to read his thesis. Myself, I think it might be worthwhile to have a look at his thesis. > > > > > >> 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. > > >> There is no further "research" necessary, all that was needed was to > >> propose > >> the distinction between the notions of capability and ability and test > >> the > >> idea for plausibility. It turns out that it is completely plausible and > >> descriptive of the way we think about rights. It even refutes the old saw > >> "what if non-human aliens landed.." When you combine that with the idea > >> that > >> animals are accorded consideration based upon a wide range of levels of > >> sentience eariler in the essay we have a comprehensive way to understand > >> our > >> moral thinking. I would submit that even "Animal Liberation" type > >> thinking > >> is not totally inconsistent with this approach, although the AMC is not.- > >> 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 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.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 > >>>> Google is your friend. > >>> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > >>> contrary to my professed values. > >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. > > You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods > you buy caused animal deaths in their production. Yes. > You > do this *UNNECESSARILY*. > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. If this is supposed to be such a big deal, hadn't you better specify what counts as "unnecessary"? Does anything count as "unnecessary"? Most people, if you asked them "Is it necessary to go to the shops and buy food?", would probably say "yes". You're setting higher standards for what counts as "unnecessary" than would apply in a normal context. "Unnecessary" is a vague term, like "reasonable". It is true that I could probably organize my life so that I could live without buying the products of commercial agriculture without actually starving to death, if I set aside all other priorities I might have, including saving people from dying in the Third World. > It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive > fact like a car being blue. This is something you > *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral > qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them > incriminating to you. > Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? I make some effort to reduce the impact my lifestyle has on animals and the environment, and I make some effort to reduce suffering and death in the Third World. I make significantly more efforts in these directions than just about everyone else in my position, certainly including you. I allow these goals to override other important goals, such as pursuing a career in mathematical research. Is this really so threatening to your self-esteem that you have to claim that I'm "self- serving" and "amoral"? Who do you think you're kidding? > It's pretty obvious why you keep trying to downplay it > and minimize it, rupie. It is morally damning to your > claims. That word "merely" is clearly implied by your > tracks-covering attempt to call it "financial" support; > what you clearly are trying to call it is "MERELY > financial" support, and you just can't do it - I don't > let you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> I'm a deontologist > >> You profess to believe in 'ar'. You don't /really/ > >> believe it, of course, as your rights-violating > >> behavior shows. > > > I believe that there are > > You believe in 'ar', rupie. > I don't think you know what you mean by that. > > If *you* think that there is an obligation to do everything possible > > to avoid buying products whose production caused some harm, > > YOU are morally obliged to believe that, rupie, if you > believe in 'ar', as you profess to believe. Why? Argue the point. Why am I morally obliged to believe that given what I've said? > But you > don't have any coherent moral beliefs about this crap > at all. It's nothing but feel-good-ism, and you draw > the line with no meaningful moral standards at all - it > is based purely on what is convenient and pleasant for you. > All right, suppose that's the case. It's different with you, is it? You've arrived at your set of moral beliefs without being in any way influenced by considerations of what's convenient and pleasant for you? I mean, you call yourself a libertarian, presumably that makes you feel good, gives you a sense of being more morally upright than most of your fellow-citizens. Yet you still believe government ought to exist and ought to enforce immigration restrictions, with no particular coherent foundation for "drawing the line" in this place that I can see. I follow all the moral rules that you follow, I conduct myself a damn sight more decently when I'm debating on usenet, and I do some other things as well, such as follow a vegan lifestyle, engage in animal activism and civil liberties activism, and donate significant amounts of time and money to charities like Oxfam and UNICEF. Furthemore I allow my desire to help people in the Third World influence my decisions about my career. You say all this is just to make me "feel good about myself". Suppose for the sake of argument that it is. So you think that entitles you to look down on me? Well, you can do that if you want. As far as I'm concerned it's just as farcical as your calling me feminine and queer, or pretending you're competent to judge my paper when you can't understand a word of it. I'm happy to let everyone draw their own conclusions about the rubbish you spout. If you get something out of spouting it, carry on. > >>>>>> 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 may have said things that > >> You have said - not "may" have said - that show you > >> profess to believe in 'ar'. It's bullshit, of course, > >> as your rights-violating behavior shows. > > > And you *still* haven't demonstrated that anything I've said entails > > that I'm violating any rights. > > Yes, rupie, I have. If you believe in animal 'rights', > as you profess to do, then you *must* at least believe > in their 'right' not to be killed casually and with no > consequences. It's not exactly "casual". It's an unfortunate side-effect of behaviour which we must engage in in order to feed ourselves. You say over and over again: given what I've said, I must believe that I am morally obliged not to support commercial agriculture. You're not doing much by way of constructing an argument. Yes, I believe animals have *some* rights. Everyone does, even Tibor Machan. He says he doesn't, but when it comes down to it he thinks we may forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a cat. That means he thinks the cat has an enforceable right not to be harmed in that way. You'll probably say you don't think animals have any rights, but when it comes down to it you'd sometimes be prepared to use force to prevent animals from being harmed. You'll have to do more by way of specifying the difference between you and me which means I'm morally obliged to believe that I should stop supporting commercial agriculture and you're not. > But your behavior shows you don't really > believe that. You just believe in exalting yourself, > that's all. The only thing you do is to refrain from > eating animal bits, and that, as we have seen, is > nothing but an empty symbolic gesture based wholly on a > logical fallacy. > I do a lot more than just refrain from eating animal bits, and it's not an empty gesture. Millions of animals are suffering terribly. Some people care about that, even if you don't. The only way it's going to change is if people make choices about their consumption habits. I have made changes to my consumption habits and am encouraging others to do the same. That is rational, given my goals. You somehow feel threatened by the fact that I have these goals and am prepared to do something about them, so you try to denigrate it by claiming that it's just about "exalting myself". Well, blabber on all you like. Any sensible person is going to recognize it as palpable rubbish, like all your rubbish about mental illness (very ironic, that one), being feminine and queer, and your absolutely hysterical attempts to denigrate my mathematical ability, as if you could possibly have the slightest clue about it. > >>>>>> 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". > >>> Your political philosophy is > >> Your animal-ethics beliefs are slop - utterly > >> incoherent slop. > > > Why are they incoherent? > > Already explained, time-wasting skirt-boy. > Right. So you've already explained why my animal ethics is incoherent and your political philosophy isn't. Well, I guess you can rest on your laurels, then. Unless of course your goal is to convince me. > >>>>>> 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 > >>> Sequitur very much > >> That isn't even English, skirt-boy. > > >> Your earlier comments were non sequitur. > > > No, they were a rational response > > No, they were entirely irrational, as well as non sequitur. > They were a good, calm, rational explanation of exactly who is entirely irrational around here. > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>> No, it's not. > >> It is, 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. > >>> Among the activists at Animal Liberation NSW > >> Mostly girls, and the rest queers. > > > Drew - straight man > > Louis and Nona - straight couple, they recently had a baby > > Angie - straight girl > > Andrea - straight girl > > Siobhan - straight girl > > Mauro and Tully - straight couple > > David - straight man > > Rupert - straight man > > Tammy - straight girl > > Jackie - straight girl > > Narelle - straight girl > > No one is going to take your word for the sexual > orientation of the boys. As I said: more girls. > Why exactly will people not take my word for the sexual orientation of the boys? What motive do I have to lie? And if I was going to lie, why wouldn't I also lie about the distribution of the sexes? And why would I have mentioned the fact that the director is queer? Could you say some more funny stuff, please, Ball? First of all, come right out and say that Drew, Mauro, Louis, David, and myself are all queer. That would really be a hoot. I might mention it to Louis, he's got a Google Groups account, he might come here and comment on the matter. And then could you explain exactly why I am claiming we are all straight? It seems to me that if we were all queer, I would say "Yes, actually, Ball, we are all queer, what of it?" Form some conjectures about what motivates me to lie. This should be really entertaining. And be sure to mention that all sensible observers are going to agree with you. > 'ar' is, fundamentally, a girlie thing. This is not > surprising, as it is based entirely on girlish > sentimentality about animals. Boys like you who plug > into 'ar' are very girlish. > This utterly ignorant stereotype is very entertaining. Also, your notion that this claim, if true, would have any relevance or interest whatsoever is very entertaining. > It's also a very urban thing, hence the usual > designation of 'ar' passivists as clueless urbanites. > You just don't know ****-all about farming and animals. > We quite often visit farms. Sometimes we take footage which we present to veterinarians to be used as evidence in cruelty prosecutions. We have a service whereby people can anonymously report instances of animal cruelty over the phone. When we are following these up we need to enlist the aid of animal welfare experts. We recently had contact with a whistleblower from the kangaroo industry who was concerned about the impact it was having on the population. Again, we had to get scientists to help us look into the matter and also to look at the quality control standards for kangaroo meat, a lot of the carcasses have quite high levels of E. coli. The veterinarians and scientists who help us out don't have any particular agenda to push. I was actually requested to work in a piggery for a few weeks and take footage which was to be used in a prosecution. We had been tipped off by a whistleblower. I didn't end up doing that because I hadn't finished my Ph.D. in time. We have to know a fair bit about farming and animals to do what we do. > >>>> But you're not interested in the > >>>> girls, rupie. > >>> Yes, folks, I think we finally have it: > >> rupie is a queer. > > > Thank you > > No problem. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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. > >>> Pfffft. > >> That's the sound of the air going out of your tiny hope > >> of winning the Field medal. > > > Yeah, you're right > > I know. > God, help me, you're a funny man, Ball. Could you elaborate on how exactly you know this paper isn't going to win me the Fields medal? I mean, I could post the proof of the Riemann hypothesis online and you'd still say "Blabber, that's not going to win you the Fields medal". Do a critique of my paper. This should be funny. > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> The list gets bigger and bigger. > >> Right! > > > Thanks > > No problem. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> As I say, > >> No, as *I* say, skirt-boy: passive blabbering of 'ar' > >> dogma is all you do. > > > Yes, you say lots of things and > > ...and they're accurate. > If they're accurate, then why I am howling with laughter? > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> Read what? > >> The answers. > > > Where are they? > > In the newsgroups. Use Google. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> That's not an answer. > >> It certainly is. The fatuous, lacking-seriousness > >> question was, "in *what*" do you believe? I supplied > >> the answer: you believe in 'ar' bullshit. > > > Yawn. > > Unpersuasive. > > You believe in 'ar' bullshit...except you don't; I see. That's certainly a very coherent view you've got there, Ball. > you > merely like to say you do, to exalt yourself. 'ar' is > entirely about its wishy-washy proponents' sense of ego. > > >>>>>> 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, incoherent, hyper-emotional mess, skirt-boy. > >>>> That's what you are. > >> Well, then! > > !! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> Yes, it is. > >> It isn't. That's why my word processor underlined it: > >> as a misspelled or non-existent word. > > > Well, you know, I can't say I'm utterly fascinated by this > > issue > > I'm surprised, given your ego and arrogance. > You're surprised that I'm not particularly interested in your pedantic, petty-minded evasions of the discussion by correcting my English, incorrectly on this occasion? Well, Ball, if you were more in touch with reailty you wouldn't find it so surprising. > >>>>> rule, certainly I don't. > >>>> No, you carve out an incoherent, self-serving, smarmy > >>>> exception for yourself. It's utterly incoherent. > >>> What's incoherent about it? > >> There's no coherent theory behind it. It's just > >> "rupie's comfort and ease", with no standards whatever. > > > All positions on this issue have some vagueness in their foundations. > > "Some"? Shit-****ing-damn, rupie - there's NOTHING BUT > mushiness and vagueness to it. > Tell us about your political philosophy, Ball, and why that's less mushy and vague than my position in animal ethics. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>> I must try this > >> Heh heh heh... > > Haw haw haw haw haw! |
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, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > > > Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>>> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.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 > > >>>> Google is your friend. > > >>> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > > >>> contrary to my professed values. > > >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > > >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > > >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > > > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. > > > You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods > > you buy caused animal deaths in their production. > > Yes. You're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively, repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support. > > You > > do this *UNNECESSARILY*. > > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie. > > It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive > > fact like a car being blue. This is something you > > *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral > > qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them > > incriminating to you. > > Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of animals. You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be "respecting" animals' rights. For the same reason you [say that you] don't buy any Persian rugs woven by Pakistani child slave labor, you ought not consume any food whose production causes consequence-free animal death on the massive scale that *YOUR* food does. > > It's pretty obvious why you keep trying to downplay it > > and minimize it, rupie. It is morally damning to your > > claims. That word "merely" is clearly implied by your > > tracks-covering attempt to call it "financial" support; > > what you clearly are trying to call it is "MERELY > > financial" support, and you just can't do it - I don't > > let you. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. |
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 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >>>> 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.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 > > > >>>> Google is your friend. > > > >>> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > > > >>> contrary to my professed values. > > > >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > > > >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > > > >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > > > > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. > > > > You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods > > > you buy caused animal deaths in their production. > > > Yes. > > You're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively, > repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your > PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support. > Well, this point is lost on me, I'm afraid. It looks like financial support to me. But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important issue. > > > You > > > do this *UNNECESSARILY*. > > > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. > > In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie. > You reckon? There's no meaningful sense in which it's necessary to buy food from the shops? > > > It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive > > > fact like a car being blue. This is something you > > > *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral > > > qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them > > > incriminating to you. > > > Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? > > Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of > animals. I don't posture. I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. I don't go around advertising this fact to the world, but I don't mind talking about it with anyone who asks. For some reason this upsets you and you start haranguing me. I am respecting the rights which I actually believe animals to have, yes. I am not respecting the rights which for some reason you think I ought to believe that animals have. Neither are you or anyone else. > You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in > this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be > "respecting" animals' rights. Can you give an actual quote of a claim I've made which it contradicts? > For the same reason you [say that you] > don't buy any Persian rugs woven by Pakistani child slave labor, you > ought not consume any food whose production causes consequence-free > animal death on the massive scale that *YOUR* food does. > The sacrifice involved in not buying Persian rugs is trivial. > > > > > It's pretty obvious why you keep trying to downplay it > > > and minimize it, rupie. It is morally damning to your > > > claims. That word "merely" is clearly implied by your > > > tracks-covering attempt to call it "financial" support; > > > what you clearly are trying to call it is "MERELY > > > financial" support, and you just can't do it - I don't > > > let you. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.- 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 12, 5:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > > >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > >>>> 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.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 > > > > >>>> Google is your friend. > > > > >>> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > > > > >>> contrary to my professed values. > > > > >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > > > > >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > > > > >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > > > > > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. > > > > > You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods > > > > you buy caused animal deaths in their production. > > > > Yes. > > > You're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively, > > repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your > > PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support. > > Well, this point is lost on me, I'm afraid. No, it isn't, rupie. > It looks like financial > support to me. No, it doesn't, rupie. It does not look like "MERELY financial" support, because I have demonstrated to you that it's something much more, something far more morally damning to your moral standing. > But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important > issue. That's another lie, rupie. You know that your active, repeated, fully aware participation - something much greater than "MERELY financial" support - completely guts your claim to virtue. That's the reason you keep desperately trying to minimize, to downplay your role. You will not succeed, rupie. > > > > You > > > > do this *UNNECESSARILY*. > > > > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. > > > In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie. > > You reckon? I know. We all know. > > > > It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive > > > > fact like a car being blue. This is something you > > > > *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral > > > > qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them > > > > incriminating to you. > > > > Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? > > > Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of > > animals. > > I don't posture. You posture. It's nothing but posturing. It's arrogance run rampant. > I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort > to reduce my contribution to **** off, you pompous grandstanding shitbag. You haven't "reduced" anything. You're merely not putting animal bits in your greasy greedy mouth, and patting yourself on the back for it. You have not done anything virtuous by that choice, shitbag. > > You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in > > this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be > > "respecting" animals' rights. > > Can you give an actual quote of a claim I've made which it > contradicts? You do not "respect" animal rights, rupie. > > For the same reason you [say that you] > > don't buy any Persian rugs woven by Pakistani > |
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 13, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:22 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > > Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > > > > >>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>>> 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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1183614654.254133.280350@i1 3g2000prf.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 > > > > > >>>> Google is your friend. > > > > > >>> You have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is > > > > > >>> contrary to my professed values. > > > > > >> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. > > > > > > >> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. > > > > > >> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. > > > > > > > I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. > > > > > > You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods > > > > > you buy caused animal deaths in their production. > > > > > Yes. > > > > You're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively, > > > repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your > > > PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support. > > > Well, this point is lost on me, I'm afraid. > > No, it isn't, rupie. > Yes, there there now. Have you ever thought about having a chat with a psychiatrist? > > It looks like financial > > support to me. > > No, it doesn't, rupie. It does not look like "MERELY financial" > support, But it does look like financial support... > because I have demonstrated to you that it's something much > more, something far more morally damning to your moral standing. > What exactly have you demonstrated? > > But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important > > issue. > > That's another lie, rupie. You know that your active, repeated, fully > aware participation - something much greater than "MERELY financial" > support - completely guts your claim to virtue. That's the reason you > keep desperately trying to minimize, to downplay your role. You will > not succeed, rupie. > Well, no, I don't know that. I mean, when you spout nonsense such as me being queer, I often wonder if you really believe it, but I usually do you the courtesy of assuming you mean what you say. How, exactly, could it be that you are virtuous and I am not, when I follow all the moral rules that you do and then some? > > > > > You > > > > > do this *UNNECESSARILY*. > > > > > Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. > > > > In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie. > > > You reckon? > > I know. We all know. > Well, that must be very nice for you. But what I was asking is, do you think there is any meaningful sense to the word "necessary", and if so, what is it? > > > > > It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive > > > > > fact like a car being blue. This is something you > > > > > *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral > > > > > qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them > > > > > incriminating to you. > > > > > Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? > > > > Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of > > > animals. > > > I don't posture. > > You posture. It's nothing but posturing. It's arrogance run rampant. > Well, no sensible person is going to form that view. No-one else finds me arrogant or accuses me of "posturing". This view you have that anyone who changes their diet for moral reasons is just "posturing" and doing it to feed their ego is the product of totally irrational, distorted thinking. It says a lot more about you than about anyone else. And all this talk about arrogance is utterly absurd. Are you really unaware of how extraordinarily arrogant your behaviour is? > > I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort > > to reduce my contribution to > > **** off, you pompous grandstanding shitbag. You haven't "reduced" > anything. You're merely not putting animal bits in your greasy greedy > mouth, and patting yourself on the back for it. You have not done > anything virtuous by that choice, shitbag. > Then why does it bother you so much? You haven't given any sensible reason why going vegan is not one rational thing to do with respect to the goal of reducing your contribution to animal suffering. You don't have that goal, or at least not so strongly as to override your other goals, fine, but why does it bother you so much that other people make different decisions? You seem to have this idea that I've given you some cause for personal annoyance simply because I express the view that reducing animal suffering is a worthy goal and going vegan is one rational strategy for pursuing that goal. You may not agree with this view - you haven't made it very clear why - but even so, what of it? You think that that alone is a reason for you to be annoyed with me, in the context of the way you behave? Seems to me there's a bit of personal insecurity going on here. > > > You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in > > > this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be > > > "respecting" animals' rights. > > > Can you give an actual quote of a claim I've made which it > > contradicts? > > You do not "respect" animal rights, rupie. I don't respect the rights of animals as you for some reason think I ought to conceive them. What of 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 12, 7:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > >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? > > I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one necessarily > causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" true > that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically true > the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the > food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go there > though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to > diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw the > line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between > causing harm and living a happy productive life? I agree that it opens up a Pandora's box, but I don't see how this can be avoided. I don't see how anyone can plausibly deny that there is a requirement to make some effort to reduce the amount of harm needed to support your lifestyle. Once I thought I heard you express agreement with me on this point. More recently you said we are never entitled to pass judgement on any pattern of consumption and in the same post said that you disapproved of the consumption of ape meat. This left me feeling somewhat confused about where you stand. |
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 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Tell you what? >> > > You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely > everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes > harm to animals. Absolutely right. I make no claim whatsoever that I am obliged to minimize harm to animals in farming per se, harm to animals is part and parcel of farming. We want food, we farm, we're stronger, we win, animals lose, the end. There are some specific areas of obligation which I believe exist which are consistent with our moral framework, those are an obligation to minimize the stress on animals we farm, and the obligation to minimize environmental impact. > You also apparently think that it is somehow harder > for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can > spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion. For starters, you never spell it out, you express vaguely that you have a belief in some form of rights for animals, then you jump to saying that you are not obliged to do any more than you want to to avoid causing harm to animals. We're left to fill in the blanks. > I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support > for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". That's part of it. > Well, look, I'll tell > you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up > with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a > look. Okay? I'd prefer if you would just answer the question. I'm not planning on waiting patiently while you write a paper t be "published", publish something here. >> > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a >> > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, >> >> Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it >> is >> completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry >> from >> "equal consideration". >> > > Yes, it is. Great, that clears everything up ;^\ >> > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power >> > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. >> >> Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't >> intersect. >> If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of >> likelihood that they will intersect. >> > > Exactly. Are yours stringent? Do they intersect? Where? >> >You too hold >> > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. >> >> Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the >> details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. >> > > I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics, > but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point. I don't know what you believe, you never say. I need to know. >> > It's pretty bloody >> > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a >> > thick skull. >> >> He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are >> skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. > > Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of > Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's > read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to > speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that > I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my > position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make > his case. How? since you never spell it out, we're forced to make some assumptions. > It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've > made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to > communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies > with me, save your breath). The fault is completely with you, and it's not lack of effort, it's lack of a clear focus. It's exausting watching you beat around the bush endlessly and never saying any of substance. You refer vaguely to some authors works, you complain about how you're treated, and you write paragraphs about how earnest your efforts are, but you never commit to saying what you actually believe. What are you afraid of, that you'll be ridiculed? You're ridiculed now. >> And when those >> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. >> > > Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on > what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I > pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and > reasonable. That's what I'm saying above. Explain yourself. > But that's not the approach that any of you are taking. > You all think you already understand my position well enough to know > that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration. > Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a > demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views > about whether that's an adequate argument. What is your position, exactly? >> > 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. >> >> Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. >> gimmee >> details. >> > > Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm > not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good > faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it. > I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've > formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and > uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think. > > I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's > the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say > anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I > wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was > true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just > analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when > I do that it's condescending. > > Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is > taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If > you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or > inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it. > Criticize the arguments, not the person. OK, but I didn't mean I want the details of how you want the responders here to behave. I meant the details of your position on harming animals, in plain English, where's your line, what is reasonable and what principles and other guidelines did you use to arrive at it? [..] |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jul 13, 4:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> I don't see what is mysterious about those capabilities, they are >> >> apparent >> >> when they manifest. >> >> >> > It's totally unclear to me in what sense >> >> > newborn infants have these capabilities and nonhuman animals don't. >> >> >> We know from experience that newborn infants have them because we have >> >> observed many, to put it mildly, mature and develop them into >> >> operative >> >> abilities, while at the same time we have yet to witness a nonhuman >> >> animal >> >> do so. >> >> > He draws a distinction between a capability and a potential ability. I >> > would like to be clearer what this distinction is, and why the >> > phenomena you point out are evidence for capability rather than >> > potential ability. >> >> Because adult non-humans have never demonstrated the abilities, therefore >> we >> can't assume that they have the capabilities, whereas human infants are >> rightly assumed to have the inherent capabilities since, barring mishap, >> they always develop the abilities. >> > > Would any further scientific discoveries cause us to re-assess either > of these two judgements? No > I mean, is this a conjecture we make about > certain structures being present in the brain, or something of that > sort? See, when you say that no further scientific research is > necessary to settle the question of who has these capabilities and who > doesn't, I find that a bit puzzling. Do you say we can settle the > question of when I first developed these capabilities without doing > any further scientific research. When precisely you developed them doesn't seem important. > I mean, once upon a time there was a > sperm and an egg. If you have a sperm and an egg in the laboratory and > you do the right procedure, then barring mishap you will end up with a > being with the abilities in question. (At the moment there is quite a > high probability that the embryo won't implant in the womb, but that > may change in the future and it's covered by "barring mishap". And you > may say that a lot of intervention is needed to get the being with the > abilities, but that's also true when you're bringing up a baby). I > mean, we still don't know very much about how brains develop. I can > infer from everyday observations that infants have conscious > experiences. But can I really infer from everyday observations that > infants have the capability for reason, free will, and linguistic > competence? Yes, because you have hundreds of billions of examples of infants maturing and possessing the operative abilities in later life. > What, exactly, entitles me to infer that which doesn't > also entitle me to infer that a fetus at 10 weeks gestation has such a > capability, or a pair consisting of a sperm and an egg has such a > capability? Nothing. >> >> > 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. >> >> >> The science is in the laboratory of everyday life. Observations of >> >> countless >> >> billions of animals and humans leads to this inescapable conclusion. >> >> > I'm still lost on what you mean by "capability". >> >> An apple seed has the capability to one day grow apples, a carrot seed >> does >> not. Make sense? >> > I mean, you say we >> > know they're present when they manifest, but when that's not the case >> > how do we go about deciding? When in our fetal development do we first >> > get these "capabilities"? >> >> They are inherent in the DNA of our species, they exist at conception. >> > > So your position is tied to a view that we first acquire full moral > status at conception? At conception we aquire all the inherent capabilities corresponding to the operative abilities we will possess as adults, no other conclusion is plausible. Our moral status at this stage is somewhat complicated by the fact that we are totally dependent on one other human, so arguably it is full moral status except that legally one person has a veto on you. >> > Can we ever lose them, apart from by death? >> >> Not completely. >> > > You said being born without a brain meant you didn't have the > capability. That would appear to be the case. Now, I don't know exactly what causes anencephaly. It may > be that, when an infant is born anencephalic, it was once a conceptus > just like the conceptus that you or I once were, but something went > awry in the process of development. So if you and I had the > capabilities at conception, what are we to say about the anencephalic > infant? Did it have the capabilities at conception and then lose them > during its development? > > Anyway, I was going to say it's conceivable that the brain might be > completely destroyed and yet you might still be alive. Would that be > one example of losing the capabilities without dying? And what about > when there is a permanent loss of electrical activity in the cerebral > cortex, so that there is no prospect of ever regaining consciousness, > as sometimes happens? Anyway, these are just side-issues. They're valid concerns but they don't change the basic reasoning. >> > Do all humans have them? >> >> I think that a brain is required, as he says in the essay. >> >> > If *all* humans have them, then what exactly >> > are the grounds for thinking no nonhumans have them? >> >> No non-humans have ever exhibited the abilities, so it would be foolish >> to >> assume that they have the capabilities. >> >> > What would be the >> > criteria for answering such questions? >> >> Seems like common sense to me. >> > > Well, it doesn't seem like common sense to me that all humans who have > a brain have uniquely human capabilities. That seems to me like the > sort of thing that has to be resolved by scientific investigation. I don't know what you mean. > I mean, you're talking about the notion of "capability" as though it > were transparent. I started by conjecturing it might be something to > do with structures in the brain, you seem to want to say it's > something to do with genetic code, but on the other hand you do think > a brain is required. And you seem to be assuming that there's no need > to clarify this further, it's obvious that we all know what is meant > by "capability" and we can all infer from everyday observations alone > that all humans have these capabilities. I don't think a scientist > would find this very satisfactory. A scientist would probably want to dig deeper, that's what scientists do, but it should satisy a philosopher. > You also seem to be assuming that Saugstad means the same thing as you > by "capability" and you don't need to read his thesis. Myself, I think > it might be worthwhile to have a look at his thesis. The essay describes exactly how he uses the term. You can read his thesis but its not going to change the outcome. you're only delaying the inevitable. |
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 12, 7:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >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? >> >> I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one >> necessarily >> causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" >> true >> that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically >> true >> the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the >> food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go >> there >> though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to >> diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw >> the >> line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between >> causing harm and living a happy productive life? > > I agree that it opens up a Pandora's box, but I don't see how this can > be avoided. A good start would be to avoid the error in thinking that leads him to make the presumptuous statement he makes above, which you lept on. > I don't see how anyone can plausibly deny that there is a > requirement to make some effort to reduce the amount of harm needed to > support your lifestyle. I can see lots of ways, in fact that statement is nonsense. For example, lets say that your lifestyle causes an amount of harm measured at 57 units (assuming one can measure it, and that assumption itself raising questions, but never mind..) and lets say that another person has a harm quotient of 31 (animals harmed per year or whatever) So who has the requirement to reduce? What is the standard we are aiming for? Is it fair to ask Mr 31 to sacrifice more when Mr 57 isn't doing anything more? > Once I thought I heard you express agreement > with me on this point. More recently you said we are never entitled to > pass judgement on any pattern of consumption and in the same post said > that you disapproved of the consumption of ape meat. This left me > feeling somewhat confused about where you stand. The problem with statements like the one you made above is that it's vague, undefinable, and essentally nonsense, but it contains a thin thread of credibility, I mean who is going to stand up and be an advocate for harm? When I say I disapprove of ape meat, and I believe that apes should be classified as moral persons, I am saying something explicit, and giving a reason for it, not making vague amorphous pronouncements. |
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 13, 12:52 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> > 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. > > >> Tell you what? > > > You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely > > everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes > > harm to animals. > > Absolutely right. I make no claim whatsoever that I am obliged to minimize > harm to animals in farming per se, harm to animals is part and parcel of > farming. We want food, we farm, we're stronger, we win, animals lose, the > end. There are some specific areas of obligation which I believe exist which > are consistent with our moral framework, those are an obligation to minimize > the stress on animals we farm, and the obligation to minimize environmental > impact. > Well, that's one position. So if that's your position I don't really see what entitles you to make a big fuss about me buying tofu and vegetables. Do you think the only positions available are the position you've just expressed and a position which says that we are obliged to do absolutely everything we can to avoid buying products which were produced in harmful ways? > > You also apparently think that it is somehow harder > > for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can > > spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion. > > For starters, you never spell it out, you express vaguely that you have a > belief in some form of rights for animals, then you jump to saying that you > are not obliged to do any more than you want to to avoid causing harm to > animals. We're left to fill in the blanks. > First of all, I agree that there are difficult questions about these issues which neither I nor anyone else has given satisfactory answers to yet. But I think that these are questions which everyone must face, I don't think that saying "we can farm animals in whatever way we damn well please" is a satisfactory way of avoiding them because I've never seen what I regard as an adequate defence of that position. Sure, my position raises difficult questions and might be criticized on various fronts, but is your position any better? I don't see it. You say "we're left to fill in the blanks". So you're complaining that you don't understand why I don't think I'm obliged to stop supporting commercial agriculture. Well, I agree, it would be nice to have a clearer answer to that question, but I'm not all that satisfied with *your* explanations of why you don't think you're obliged to stop supporting commercial agriculture either. Either we're obliged to do it or we're not. It's fine to explore the issue, but I don't really appreciate constantly being taken to task for not doing it. I don't take any of you to task for anything you do. I may have once or twice made a few comments to Ball in exasperation at his rudeness. Why shouldn't I hold that there are fairly extensive obligations to boycott harmful forms of agriculture, but not an obligation to boycott agriculture altogether? Sure, you might say "well, why draw the line in that particular place?" Well, why do you draw the line in your particular place? I'm not overly impressed with anything you've said by way of justifying the particular place you've chosen to draw the line. I've got a fair amount of uncertainty about the particular place I've chosen to draw the line, you don't seem to have all that much uncertainty, but I don't see that you've got an edge in terms of justification. Or you may say you've been clearer about exactly where you choose to draw the line, well I don't really see that either, but if so, what of it? So I've got a bit more uncertainty than you about where to draw the line. So what? You once said I wasn't shy about taking people to task for eating meat. Well, actually that's not true, and when I pointed that out you said that was a fault too, that I didn't have the guts to be forthright about my position for fear of giving offence. Apparently once you've taken the position I do you can't win. Anyway, you're not shy about taking me to task for holding the position that I do, and then you complain that you don't understand it. Well, there must have been something I said which inspired you to pour such unmeasured scorn on me. Just specify what it is. > > I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support > > > for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". > > That's part of it. > > > Well, look, I'll tell > > you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up > > with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a > > look. Okay? > > I'd prefer if you would just answer the question. I'm not planning on > waiting patiently while you write a paper t be "published", publish > something here. > Well, look, I find your attitude pretty obnoxious. I've done a fair bit by way of trying to explain and got abuse for my trouble. I've tried simple answers and you haven't found them satisfactory. So I offered to make the effort of writing a more detailed explanation. If you're not interested I won't bother to show it to you. > >> > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a > >> > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, > > >> Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that it > >> is > >> completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far cry > >> from > >> "equal consideration". > > > Yes, it is. > > Great, that clears everything up ;^\ > > >> > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power > >> > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. > > >> Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't > >> intersect. > >> If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of > >> likelihood that they will intersect. > > > Exactly. > > Are yours stringent? Do they intersect? Where? > Are they stringent? Well, it's all relative, isn't it. I said I was going to make an effort to explain my position more clearly, I may do that too if I feel the inclination. > >> >You too hold > >> > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. > > >> Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in the > >> details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. > > > I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics, > > but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point. > > I don't know what you believe, you never say. I need to know. > If you really want to know, you could always try asking me in a somewhat more polite way. I offered to make an effort to explain why I think my position is consistent with equal consideration instead and you said you didn't have the patience to wait, you asked me to summarize it in a sound-bite. I've already tried that. You have to understand that I don't have any particular interest in gaining your positive regard, any more than you have any interest in gaining mine. My only motive for bothering to try and make my thoughts clear to you is if I think there might be some hope of having an interesting conversation. If you want me to bother to try and explain myself to you you have to give me some reason to think that conversing with you will be a worthwhile experience. > >> > It's pretty bloody > >> > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a > >> > thick skull. > > >> He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you are > >> skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. > > > Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of > > Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's > > read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to > > speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that > > I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my > > position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make > > his case. > > How? since you never spell it out, we're forced to make some assumptions. > Well, exactly, how. If what I've said so far isn't a sufficient basis for making the case, then you shouldn't be calling me a hypocrite. If you don't understand my position, you should be politely asking me for more details (which I have already given, actually). > > It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've > > made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to > > communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies > > with me, save your breath). > > The fault is completely with you, and it's not lack of effort, it's lack of > a clear focus. It's exausting watching you beat around the bush endlessly > and never saying any of substance. You refer vaguely to some authors works, > you complain about how you're treated, and you write paragraphs about how > earnest your efforts are, but you never commit to saying what you actually > believe. What are you afraid of, that you'll be ridiculed? You're ridiculed > now. > > >> And when those > >> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. > > > Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on > > what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I > > pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and > > reasonable. > > That's what I'm saying above. Explain yourself. > Jolly good. All right, well, maybe I'll have another go. > > But that's not the approach that any of you are taking. > > You all think you already understand my position well enough to know > > that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration. > > Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a > > demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views > > about whether that's an adequate argument. > > What is your position, exactly? > I'll have another go at explaining what I believe. I'll write it up on the weekend. > > > > > >> > 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. > > >> Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. > >> gimmee > >> details. > > > Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm > > not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good > > faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it. > > I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've > > formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and > > uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think. > > > I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's > > the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say > > anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I > > wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was > > true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just > > analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when > > I do that it's condescending. > > > Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is > > taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If > > you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or > > inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it. > > Criticize the arguments, not the person. > > OK, but I didn't mean I want the details of how you want the responders here > to behave. I meant the details of your position on harming animals, in plain > English, where's your line, what is reasonable and what principles and other > guidelines did you use to arrive at it? > > [..]- 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 13, 2:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 7:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote > > >> >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? > > >> I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one > >> necessarily > >> causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be "generally" > >> true > >> that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't categorically > >> true > >> the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume the > >> food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go > >> there > >> though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule to > >> diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw > >> the > >> line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, between > >> causing harm and living a happy productive life? > > > I agree that it opens up a Pandora's box, but I don't see how this can > > be avoided. > > A good start would be to avoid the error in thinking that leads him to make > the presumptuous statement he makes above, which you lept on. > It's not presumptuous. It's just a statement which might be questioned when certain facts are taken into account. There are certain facts, which he may not be aware of, and if he took them into account he probably should have qualified the statement somewhat. I've agreed with this point many times, I thought we could just take it as read. > > I don't see how anyone can plausibly deny that there is a > > requirement to make some effort to reduce the amount of harm needed to > > support your lifestyle. > > I can see lots of ways, in fact that statement is nonsense. For example, > lets say that your lifestyle causes an amount of harm measured at 57 units > (assuming one can measure it, and that assumption itself raising questions, > but never mind..) and lets say that another person has a harm quotient of 31 > (animals harmed per year or whatever) So who has the requirement to reduce? > What is the standard we are aiming for? Is it fair to ask Mr 31 to sacrifice > more when Mr 57 isn't doing anything more? Well, Mr 57 probably isn't entitled to criticize Mr 31, which is why you people shouldn't harrass me for my lifestyle. Yes, there is a question of where to draw the line. That question comes up in all sorts of areas of morality. I don't see that that's any grounds for calling the statement "nonsense". > > > Once I thought I heard you express agreement > > with me on this point. More recently you said we are never entitled to > > pass judgement on any pattern of consumption and in the same post said > > that you disapproved of the consumption of ape meat. This left me > > feeling somewhat confused about where you stand. > > The problem with statements like the one you made above is that it's vague, > undefinable, and essentally nonsense, but it contains a thin thread of > credibility, I mean who is going to stand up and be an advocate for harm? > When I say I disapprove of ape meat, and I believe that apes should be > classified as moral persons, I am saying something explicit, and giving a > reason for it, not making vague amorphous pronouncements. So it's okay to hold a position like mine as long as the criteria for where to draw the line are explicitly formulated? |
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 13, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> On Jul 12, 5:22 pm, Rupert > wrote: >> >>> On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> On Jul 12, 4:32 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>> On Jul 13, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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 have never once demonstrated that I behave in a way that is >>>>>>>>> contrary to my professed values. >>>>>>>> I have. So have Dutch and Chico. >>>>>>>> You participate in processes that slaughter animals. >>>>>>>> This is *NOT* "merely financial" support, as you lie. >>>>>>> I buy products whose production caused animal deaths. >>>>>> You *GO* to the shops *REPEATEDLY*, *KNOWING* the foods >>>>>> you buy caused animal deaths in their production. >>>>> Yes. >>>> You're damned right "yes", you shitworm. Yes, you are actively, >>>> repeatedly and knowingly participating in a process, and your >>>> PARTICIPATION goes far beyond "merely financial" support. >>> Well, this point is lost on me, I'm afraid. >> No, it isn't, rupie. >> > > Yes, there there now. Have you ever thought about having a chat with a > psychiatrist? > >>> It looks like financial >>> support to me. >> No, it doesn't, rupie. It does not look like "MERELY financial" >> support, > > But it does look like financial support... > >> because I have demonstrated to you that it's something much >> more, something far more morally damning to your moral standing. >> > > What exactly have you demonstrated? > >>> But it doesn'tr strike me as a particularly important >>> issue. >> That's another lie, rupie. You know that your active, repeated, fully >> aware participation - something much greater than "MERELY financial" >> support - completely guts your claim to virtue. That's the reason you >> keep desperately trying to minimize, to downplay your role. You will >> not succeed, rupie. >> > > Well, no, I don't know that. I mean, when you spout nonsense such as > me being queer, I often wonder if you really believe it, but I usually > do you the courtesy of assuming you mean what you say. How, exactly, > could it be that you are virtuous and I am not, when I follow all the > moral rules that you do and then some? > >>>>>> You >>>>>> do this *UNNECESSARILY*. >>>>> Well, yes, I suppose so, in some sense. >>>> In any meaningful sense of the word "necessary", rupie. >>> You reckon? >> I know. We all know. >> > > Well, that must be very nice for you. But what I was asking is, do you > think there is any meaningful sense to the word "necessary", and if > so, what is it? > >>>>>> It's an active *process*, rupie. It isn't a passive >>>>>> fact like a car being blue. This is something you >>>>>> *DO*, rupie, all the time. There are numerous moral >>>>>> qualities to this ACTIVITY, rupie, all of them >>>>>> incriminating to you. >>>>> Why exactly do you feel entitled to point your finger at me? >>>> Because you posture and claim you're "respecting" the rights of >>>> animals. >>> I don't posture. >> You posture. It's nothing but posturing. It's arrogance run rampant. >> > > Well, no sensible person is going to form that view. No-one else finds > me arrogant or accuses me of "posturing". This view you have that > anyone who changes their diet for moral reasons is just "posturing" > and doing it to feed their ego is the product of totally irrational, > distorted thinking. It says a lot more about you than about anyone > else. And all this talk about arrogance is utterly absurd. Are you > really unaware of how extraordinarily arrogant your behaviour is? > >>> I've made a decision to change my diet in an effort >>> to reduce my contribution to >> **** off, you pompous grandstanding shitbag. You haven't "reduced" >> anything. You're merely not putting animal bits in your greasy greedy >> mouth, and patting yourself on the back for it. You have not done >> anything virtuous by that choice, shitbag. >> > > Then why does it bother you so much? > > You haven't given any sensible reason why going vegan is not one > rational thing to do with respect to the goal of reducing your > contribution to animal suffering. You don't have that goal, or at > least not so strongly as to override your other goals, fine, but why > does it bother you so much that other people make different decisions? > You seem to have this idea that I've given you some cause for personal > annoyance simply because I express the view that reducing animal > suffering is a worthy goal and going vegan is one rational strategy > for pursuing that goal. You may not agree with this view - you haven't > made it very clear why - but even so, what of it? You think that that > alone is a reason for you to be annoyed with me, in the context of the > way you behave? Seems to me there's a bit of personal insecurity going > on here. > >>>> You're doing no such thing. Your daily participation in >>>> this death-causing process completely contradicts your claim to be >>>> "respecting" animals' rights. >>> Can you give an actual quote of a claim I've made which it >>> contradicts? >> You do not "respect" animal rights, rupie. > > I don't respect the rights of animals 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
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ps.com... > On Jul 13, 12:52 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 12, 6:04 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Tell you what? >> >> > You apparently think that you are not obliged to do absolutely >> > everything you can to stop buying products whose production causes >> > harm to animals. >> >> Absolutely right. I make no claim whatsoever that I am obliged to >> minimize >> harm to animals in farming per se, harm to animals is part and parcel of >> farming. We want food, we farm, we're stronger, we win, animals lose, the >> end. There are some specific areas of obligation which I believe exist >> which >> are consistent with our moral framework, those are an obligation to >> minimize >> the stress on animals we farm, and the obligation to minimize >> environmental >> impact. >> > > Well, that's one position. So if that's your position I don't really > see what entitles you to make a big fuss about me buying tofu and > vegetables. Do you think the only positions available are the position > you've just expressed and a position which says that we are obliged to > do absolutely everything we can to avoid buying products which were > produced in harmful ways? I don't know what your position is. Saying that you buy tofu and vegetables doesn't tell me. >> > You also apparently think that it is somehow harder >> > for me to justify having this view than it is for you. Perhaps you can >> > spell out for me exactly what has led you to this conclusion. >> >> For starters, you never spell it out, you express vaguely that you have a >> belief in some form of rights for animals, then you jump to saying that >> you >> are not obliged to do any more than you want to to avoid causing harm to >> animals. We're left to fill in the blanks. >> > > First of all, I agree that there are difficult questions about these > issues which neither I nor anyone else has given satisfactory answers > to yet. But I think that these are questions which everyone must face, > I don't think that saying "we can farm animals in whatever way we damn > well please" is a satisfactory way of avoiding them because I've never > seen what I regard as an adequate defence of that position. Sure, my > position raises difficult questions and might be criticized on various > fronts, but is your position any better? I don't see it. > > You say "we're left to fill in the blanks". So you're complaining that > you don't understand why I don't think I'm obliged to stop supporting > commercial agriculture. Well, I agree, it would be nice to have a > clearer answer to that question, but I'm not all that satisfied with > *your* explanations of why you don't think you're obliged to stop > supporting commercial agriculture either. Either we're obliged to do > it or we're not. It's fine to explore the issue, but I don't really > appreciate constantly being taken to task for not doing it. I don't > take any of you to task for anything you do. I may have once or twice > made a few comments to Ball in exasperation at his rudeness. > > Why shouldn't I hold that there are fairly extensive obligations to > boycott harmful forms of agriculture, but not an obligation to boycott > agriculture altogether? Sure, you might say "well, why draw the line > in that particular place?" Well, why do you draw the line in your > particular place? I'm not overly impressed with anything you've said > by way of justifying the particular place you've chosen to draw the > line. I've got a fair amount of uncertainty about the particular place > I've chosen to draw the line, you don't seem to have all that much > uncertainty, but I don't see that you've got an edge in terms of > justification. Or you may say you've been clearer about exactly where > you choose to draw the line, well I don't really see that either, but > if so, what of it? So I've got a bit more uncertainty than you about > where to draw the line. So what? > > You once said I wasn't shy about taking people to task for eating > meat. Well, actually that's not true, and when I pointed that out you > said that was a fault too, that I didn't have the guts to be > forthright about my position for fear of giving offence. Apparently > once you've taken the position I do you can't win. Anyway, you're not > shy about taking me to task for holding the position that I do, and > then you complain that you don't understand it. Well, there must have > been something I said which inspired you to pour such unmeasured scorn > on me. Just specify what it is. I don't know what your position is, and I guess the reason is neither do you, but you write published papers and get paid to speak to graduate students about morals and animals so I suppose I expect you to have it more together. >> > I suspect you will mention the fact that I have expressed my support >> >> > for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration". >> >> That's part of it. >> >> > Well, look, I'll tell >> > you what, maybe I'll write up something about this. I'll write it up >> > with the intention of getting it published, and I'll let you have a >> > look. Okay? >> >> I'd prefer if you would just answer the question. I'm not planning on >> waiting patiently while you write a paper t be "published", publish >> something here. >> > > Well, look, I find your attitude pretty obnoxious. I've done a fair > bit by way of trying to explain and got abuse for my trouble. I've > tried simple answers and you haven't found them satisfactory. So I > offered to make the effort of writing a more detailed explanation. If > you're not interested I won't bother to show it to you. You gave me a straight answer? >> >> > My point was simply that one may coherently hold a >> >> > view that there are some constraints on how we should treat animals, >> >> >> Of course, virtually everybody believes that, everyone believes that >> >> it >> >> is >> >> completely immoral to torture animals for example, but that's a far >> >> cry >> >> from >> >> "equal consideration". >> >> > Yes, it is. >> >> Great, that clears everything up ;^\ >> >> >> > but that we are not obliged to do absolutely everything in our power >> >> > to avoid buying products whose production harmed them. >> >> >> Not at all, not as long as that harm and those constraints don't >> >> intersect. >> >> If those constraints are very stringent then there is a high degree of >> >> likelihood that they will intersect. >> >> > Exactly. >> >> Are yours stringent? Do they intersect? Where? >> > > Are they stringent? Well, it's all relative, isn't it. I said I was > going to make an effort to explain my position more clearly, I may do > that too if I feel the inclination. Great. >> >> >You too hold >> >> > such a view, so presumably you agree with me. >> >> >> Pretty much everbody agrees with that, in general, but the devil's in >> >> the >> >> details. We need the details before I will say that we agree. >> >> > I don't think we agree on all the issues there are in animal ethics, >> > but I thought maybe we could agree on this one point. >> >> I don't know what you believe, you never say. I need to know. >> > > If you really want to know, you could always try asking me in a > somewhat more polite way. I offered to make an effort to explain why I > think my position is consistent with equal consideration instead and > you said you didn't have the patience to wait, you asked me to > summarize it in a sound-bite. I've already tried that. How much more polite can I be than simply asking? > You have to understand that I don't have any particular interest in > gaining your positive regard, any more than you have any interest in > gaining mine. My only motive for bothering to try and make my thoughts > clear to you is if I think there might be some hope of having an > interesting conversation. If you want me to bother to try and explain > myself to you you have to give me some reason to think that conversing > with you will be a worthwhile experience. I want you to do it so I can learn for starters, but at least if you are able to articulate your ideas clearly to me I'll bet anything that it will help to crystallize for you what you really believe about these matters. > >> >> > It's pretty bloody >> >> > obvious, but he apparently doesn't get it, that's why I say he has a >> >> > thick skull. >> >> >> He gets that, he's just filling in the blanks of all the issues you >> >> are >> >> skirting around and not being forthright about, the details. >> >> > Well, not really. He's just saying I must be either a follower of >> > Singer or a follower of Regan because those are the only ones he's >> > read, and I'm explaining to him, no, that's not so. If he's going to >> > speak to me the way he does then it's his job to make his case that >> > I'm a hypocrite. He apparently thinks he already knows enough about my >> > position to conclude that I'm being hypocritical. Fine, let him make >> > his case. >> >> How? since you never spell it out, we're forced to make some assumptions. >> > > Well, exactly, how. If what I've said so far isn't a sufficient basis > for making the case, then you shouldn't be calling me a hypocrite. If > you don't understand my position, you should be politely asking me for > more details (which I have already given, actually). If you did they got lost in all the irrlevant crap. >> > It's not true that I'm not being forthright about my position, I've >> > made a reasonable effort, but it's exhausting work trying to >> > communicate with you people. (Yes, I know you think the fault lies >> > with me, save your breath). >> >> The fault is completely with you, and it's not lack of effort, it's lack >> of >> a clear focus. It's exausting watching you beat around the bush endlessly >> and never saying any of substance. You refer vaguely to some authors >> works, >> you complain about how you're treated, and you write paragraphs about how >> earnest your efforts are, but you never commit to saying what you >> actually >> believe. What are you afraid of, that you'll be ridiculed? You're >> ridiculed >> now. >> >> >> And when those >> >> are filled in, well, then we'll see. If you ever get around to it. >> >> > Well, that would be nice. If you said "Look, I'm not very clear on >> > what your position is, I need you to explain it more clearly before I >> > pass judgement on it". That would certainly be very nice and >> > reasonable. >> >> That's what I'm saying above. Explain yourself. >> > > Jolly good. All right, well, maybe I'll have another go. > >> > But that's not the approach that any of you are taking. >> > You all think you already understand my position well enough to know >> > that I am a hypocrite. Well, maybe so. Bring on the demonstration. >> > Ball is apparently happy to say "you believe in AR" and call that a >> > demonstration. All right, well, everyone can form their own views >> > about whether that's an adequate argument. >> >> What is your position, exactly? >> > > I'll have another go at explaining what I believe. I'll write it up on > the weekend. See you on the other side. Good luck. I promise I'll try to be nice when I read it. >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Good, shoot. Tell me what you think is reasonable. Details, details.. >> >> gimmee >> >> details. >> >> > Okay, well, I'm a reasonable, intelligent person just like you. I'm >> > not immune to reason. Whenever someone makes a point I make a good >> > faith effort to consider it fairly and make a serious response to it. >> > I've thought about these issues at least as much as you have, I've >> > formed some views. Yes, there are a lot of areas of vagueness and >> > uncertainty, but no more than in anyone else's views, I don't think. >> >> > I mean, you call me condescending, well, you once said to me "That's >> > the same circular verbal diarrhoea he engages in. You didn't say >> > anything in that paragraph." You think that's not condescending? I >> > wouldn't say something like that to you, even if I thought it was >> > true. I'd just specify what I found unclear. You say you're just >> > analyzing what you see. Apparently you're allowed to do that but when >> > I do that it's condescending. >> >> > Just assume good faith. Have respect for the fact that someone is >> > taking the trouble to try and have a serious conversation with you. If >> > you find something unclear or inadequate, say what you find unclear or >> > inadequate about it. Don't just rubbish it without engaging in it. >> > Criticize the arguments, not the person. >> >> OK, but I didn't mean I want the details of how you want the responders >> here >> to behave. I meant the details of your position on harming animals, in >> plain >> English, where's your line, what is reasonable and what principles and >> other >> guidelines did you use to arrive at it? >> >> [..]- 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 13, 2:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 12, 7:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >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? >> >> >> I noticed that, yes, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that one >> >> necessarily >> >> causes less harm by consuming a vegetarian diet. It many be >> >> "generally" >> >> true >> >> that plants cause less harm than meat, but since it isn't >> >> categorically >> >> true >> >> the actual dictum ought to be, "we have a prima facie duty to consume >> >> the >> >> food that causes the least harm in a particular instance." Once you go >> >> there >> >> though, as you know, a pandora's box opens up. Why only apply the rule >> >> to >> >> diet, what about other consumer activities? And then where do you draw >> >> the >> >> line, if you can draw a line when faced with a prima facie duty, >> >> between >> >> causing harm and living a happy productive life? >> >> > I agree that it opens up a Pandora's box, but I don't see how this can >> > be avoided. >> >> A good start would be to avoid the error in thinking that leads him to >> make >> the presumptuous statement he makes above, which you lept on. >> > > It's not presumptuous. It's just a statement which might be questioned > when certain facts are taken into account. There are certain facts, > which he may not be aware of, and if he took them into account he > probably should have qualified the statement somewhat. I've agreed > with this point many times, I thought we could just take it as read. > >> > I don't see how anyone can plausibly deny that there is a >> > requirement to make some effort to reduce the amount of harm needed to >> > support your lifestyle. >> >> I can see lots of ways, in fact that statement is nonsense. For example, >> lets say that your lifestyle causes an amount of harm measured at 57 >> units >> (assuming one can measure it, and that assumption itself raising >> questions, >> but never mind..) and lets say that another person has a harm quotient of >> 31 >> (animals harmed per year or whatever) So who has the requirement to >> reduce? >> What is the standard we are aiming for? Is it fair to ask Mr 31 to >> sacrifice >> more when Mr 57 isn't doing anything more? > > Well, Mr 57 probably isn't entitled to criticize Mr 31, which is why > you people shouldn't harrass me for my lifestyle. Yes, there is a > question of where to draw the line. That question comes up in all > sorts of areas of morality. I don't see that that's any grounds for > calling the statement "nonsense". It was meant literally, not as an insult. How can you say that there is a "requirement to reduce" when there is no means to weigh harm accurately and no standard to measure against? How do you know if a given person has the requirement? Reduction implies that the current level is too high, how can you assume that? It reminds me of the statement "Vegans cause less harm than meat-eaters". Which vegan, eating how much of what food produced where and how? Which meat-eater, eating how much of what food produced where and how? >> > Once I thought I heard you express agreement >> > with me on this point. More recently you said we are never entitled to >> > pass judgement on any pattern of consumption and in the same post said >> > that you disapproved of the consumption of ape meat. This left me >> > feeling somewhat confused about where you stand. >> >> The problem with statements like the one you made above is that it's >> vague, >> undefinable, and essentally nonsense, but it contains a thin thread of >> credibility, I mean who is going to stand up and be an advocate for harm? >> When I say I disapprove of ape meat, and I believe that apes should be >> classified as moral persons, I am saying something explicit, and giving a >> reason for it, not making vague amorphous pronouncements. > > So it's okay to hold a position like mine as long as the criteria for > where to draw the line are explicitly formulated? I don't know what your position really is, so I won't prejudice my ability to judge until I hear it. At least if you weigh all the facts as best you can and take a clear, definite, reasonable position based on them I don't see how anyone can legitimately attack you. They might still disagree, some even vehemently, but at least you will have earned the respect due someone who has ventured to take a stand. To be honest, I think you are up against it if you go into it with a requirement to come to a position that animals have fundamental rights, but if you leave yourself open in seeking out the truth you can probably come up with something pretty damn profound. If you can earn a PhD in math surely you can expend the brain-power to do something equally worthwhile in this field, not just parrot what other men have written. I'm telling you Rupert, this field is wide open for someone to take a really fresh look at it. People are not as confused in very many areas as they are in the area of the relationship with animals. The status quo is admittedly not great, and the "AR" movement is pretty much in shambles, collapsing under the weight of its own rhetoric, that leaves a wide field to create something that people can relate to. Moralsat99 is pretty good example of that in my opinion. It's well researched, straight, readable, and it hits all the right notes. Read "The Ominore's Dilemma" if you get a chance. |
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: > > No "moral personhood" in sight, > > Monkeys? No, indeed they don't. Round and round he goes, where he'll end up..... |
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 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Your daily participation in this death-causing process http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/He...usJob_FFN.html "Although official statistics are not kept, the death rate among slaughterhouse sanitation crews is extraordinarily high. They are the ultimate in disposable workers: illegal, illiterate, impoverished, untrained. The nation's worst job can end in just about the worst way. Sometimes these workers are literally ground up and reduced to nothing During the same years when the working conditions at America's meatpacking plants became more dangerous - when line speeds increased and illegal immigrants replaced skilled workers - the federal government greatly reduced the enforcement of health and safety laws." |
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: > >>> No "moral personhood" in sight, >> Monkeys? No, indeed they don't. > > Round and round he goes, ....kicking your ass, punching your nose. And you keep coming back for more. |
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:
> On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Your daily participation in this death-causing process > > http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/He...usJob_FFN.html > > "Although official statistics are not kept, So it's bullshit. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote
> No "moral personhood" in sight, either in inter-species > or human relationships. So according to Dutch you're > disqualified from moral consideration and rights. lol. I realize you are attempting humour here, but for the record, "moral personhood" does not depend on actions or even operative abilities, it's based on inherent capabilities. (moralstat99.doc, Pp 18-19) 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. 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. 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. 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. |
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, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered: > > > Here is the paper I am working on at the moment. > > >http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf > > "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..." > > "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable > > You pompous fat ****. Dear oh dear, Ball. I didn't realize it was possible for you to get any funnier. "Axiomatizable" is a standard term in mathematical logic, you will find it in any text. A theory T is said to be axiomatizable if there exists a decidable set S of postulates such that T is the deductive closure of S. I doubt you'd find "cohomology" in the dictionary either. This is almost as good as when the sci.math crank James Harris tries to critique Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem. Keep trying to critique my paper, Ball. Wonderful entertainment. |
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: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > >> pearl wrote: > > > >>> No "moral personhood" in sight, > >> Monkeys? No, indeed they don't. > > > > Round and round he goes, > > ...kicking your ass, punching your nose. > > And you keep coming back for more. Great exhibition, ball. 'The Power and Control Wheel Using isolation. One of the most effective ways to begin to overpower another person is to keep her from having contact with others. By systematically severing her relationships with family, friends, and co-workers, the batterer insures that his victim has little support. He becomes her only point of reference, thereby defining and controlling her world. Batterers can isolate their partners in a variety of ways, from excessive jealousy to restricting their access to education and jobs or controlling where they go or with whom they spend their time. For women with disabilities, *******s, older women, immigrant women, or others who are marginalized by mainstream society, isolation takes on an increased potency. Minimizing, denying, and blaming. Batterers often minimize or deny the abuse, or they blame their partners for provoking it. He may minimize the severity of her injuries, or outright deny that he caused them. Unfortunately, "victim-blaming" is prevalent in our society. Sometimes abusers play mind games with their victims trying to make them feel crazy. Often violent behavior towards women is justified by saying things like "she asked for it" or "she needed to be put back in her place." In so doing, the blame and accountability shifts from the abusive behavior of the batterer to the "weakness" of the victim. Using children. Using children is yet another way that a batterer can instill feelings of guilt and incompetence in his partner, making her feel like a "bad" mother. Some batterers will force children to turn against their mothers, or will threaten to take the children away if the victim were to try to leave. There is also evidence that in homes where there is abuse towards the mother, there is an increased likelihood of abuse towards the children. Girls whose fathers batter their mothers are 6.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by their fathers than are girls from non-violent homes. Using male privilege. In our patriarchal society, men are often raised to believe that they have been given the right to be dominating and aggressive. Being "tough" and "in charge" are accepted and expected as part of one´s manhood. It is all too often the case that batterers use this gender imbalance as a justification for violent or controlling behavior. Using economic abuse. By controlling and limiting a woman´s access to financial means, a batterer can assure that his victim will have limited resources if she has thoughts of leaving. She may have to turn over her paycheck, leave her job, or account for every penny spent. Too often women have to choose between staying in an abusive relationship or being thrust into economic ruin or poverty. Using coercion and threats. Threats are used to control by creating intense fear that can paralyze the victim's ability to act or keep herself constantly on guard in an effort to protect our lives or well-being. Some common threats are suicide, threats to kill her or the children, threats to damage property, etc. The victim may also be coerced into acting in ways that contradict her values, such as prostitution or fraud. Using intimidation. Abusers will often commit terrifying acts in order to keep their partner in a state of continuous fear. This may include smashing things, killing pets, harassing friends and family, setting fires, driving recklessly, suicide and homicide. Intimidation periodically reinforced with assault, makes violence a daily part of the victim´s reality and, therefore, makes her easier to control. Using emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is the most common form of control and can often exist in relationships where there is not physical battering. This includes put-downs, insults to the victim´s intelligence and abilities, name-calling, etc. In so doing, the batterer systematically breaks her spirit and self-esteem. She may begin to feel as if the abuse is her fault or that she must deserve it. These forms of abuse are used in multiple combinations. Constant violence and criticism leaves women uncertain, humiliated, and much easier to control. Labels: blame shifting, coercion, denying, economic, emotional abuse, intimidation, isolation, minimizing, misogyny ...... http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/ |
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: > > On Jul 13, 9:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >> Your daily participation in this death-causing process > > > > http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/He...usJob_FFN.html > > > > "Although official statistics are not kept, ." > > So it's bullshit. 'IV. Worker Health and Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry ... Five thousand workers die on the job each year in the United States, and five million are hurt on the job; many of these are preventable at reasonable cost.59 ... 59] See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (2002). For a comprehensive, solidly researched and source-cited review of the status of workers' health and safety in the United States from labor's perspective, see AFL-CIO, "Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect; A National and State-by-State Profile of Worker Safety and Health in the United States," 13th edition, April 2004. ...' http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/4.htm "Although official statistics are not kept, the death rate among slaughterhouse sanitation crews is extraordinarily high. They are the ultimate in disposable workers: illegal, illiterate, impoverished, untrained. The nation's worst job can end in just about the worst way. Sometimes these workers are literally ground up and reduced to nothing During the same years when the working conditions at America's meatpacking plants became more dangerous - when line speeds increased and illegal immigrants replaced skilled workers - the federal government greatly reduced the enforcement of health and safety laws." |
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:b7Pli.111629$NV3.46277@pd7urf2no...
> "pearl" > wrote > > > No "moral personhood" in sight, either in inter-species > > or human relationships. So according to Dutch you're > > disqualified from moral consideration and rights. lol. > > I realize you are attempting humour here, but for the record, "moral > personhood" does not depend on actions or even operative abilities, it's > based on inherent capabilities. (moralstat99.doc, Pp 18-19) Ball shows no sign of that either. And don't think that he cares about you just because he works with you at times. It suits him as you meet his need for followers and adulation. He uses you. > 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. > > 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. > 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. > 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. ".... the capability of moral agency. " 'Brain potentials implicate temporal lobe abnormalities in criminal psychopaths. Kiehl KA, Bates AT, Laurens KR, Hare RD, Liddle PF Clinical Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center, Institute of Living, Hartford, CT 06106, USA. Psychopathy is associated with abnormalities in attention and orienting. However, few studies have examined the neural systems underlying these processes. To address this issue, the authors recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) while 80 incarcerated men, classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic via the Hare Psychopathy Checklist -- Revised (R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003), completed an auditory oddball task. Consistent with hypotheses, processing of targets elicited larger frontocentral negativities (N550) in psychopaths than in nonpsychopaths. Psychopaths also showed an enlarged N2 and reduced P3 during target detection. Similar ERP modulations have been reported in patients with amygdala and temporal lobe damage. The data are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that psychopathy may be related to dysfunction of the paralimbic system -- a system that includes parts of the temporal and frontal lobes. Journal of abnormal psychology. (2006) http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/...?pmid=16866585 "Brain Abnormality Linked To Pathology " by Erica Goode The New York Times, February 15, 2000 "Ask the average social scientist why people become criminals, and the answer is apt to center on poverty and abuse, not brain structure and neurochemicals. But in a new study, appearing in the February issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers report that 21 men with antisocial personality disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis often applied to people with a history of criminal behavior, and a history of violence had subtle abnormalities in the structure of the brain's frontal lobe. The abnormalities, the researchers found, distinguished the men with the disorder from healthy subjects, as well as from subjects who abused alcohol or drugs, or who suffered from other psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia. When combined with the results of previous studies, write the researchers, led by Dr. Adrian Raine, Robert Wright Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern California, the findings suggest ''that there is a significant brain basis to APD over and above contributions from the psychosocial environment, and that these neurobehavioral processes are relevant to understanding violence in everyday society.'' The official diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association lists a variety of criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, including 'a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors,' deceitfulness, impulsiveness, reckless disregard for the safety of self or others, lack of remorse and 'consistent irresponsibility.' ....' http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artGoode.html |
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 |