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 wrote:
> 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 Pound sand up your ass, rupie. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
lesley the lying whore of Cork lied:
> "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 Of course. **** off, now. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied:
> "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 Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > 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 > > Pound sand up your ass, rupie. You've got to admit, Ball, that was pretty damn funny. That's what happens when you are so desperate to try to put people down, no matter how little you know about what you are talking about. Are you beginning to understand why no-one takes you seriously? |
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 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> 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 >> Pound sand up your ass, rupie. > > You've got to admit No. ****wit. |
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 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> 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 > >> Pound sand up your ass, rupie. > > > You've got to admit > > No. ****wit. You must realize how extraordinarily amusing that was to me, Ball. We both know it. Come on. Keep replying. This is great. |
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 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie. >>> You've got to admit >> No. ****wit. > > You must realize No. ****wit. |
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" > lied in message ink.net...
> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: 'The serial bully: ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication .. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm > > "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 > > Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. There is plenty about it in that report. As for the deaths: 'The slaughtering, stripping, cleaning, and packing of meat is incredibly dangerous for workers, whose industrial injury rate is three times the national average. Meatpacking has continuously topped the charts as the most dangerous job in the U.S. for the past century, with 540 deaths a year - one ninth of all U.S. worker deaths - and countless serious injuries. ....' http://www.socialistalternative.org/...e19.php?id=370 'IV. Worker Health and Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/4.htm Ball will never admit to "participation" in death, injury, and violation of human rights in the meat industry he supports. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied:
> "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... >> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: > > 'The serial bully: You stupid slut. >>> "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 >> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. > > There is plenty about it in that report There is nothing. You slopped together two separate shitty copy-and-paste jobs, you filthy ****. One was from a legitimate source that addressed workplace deaths, but did *NOT* specifically mention packing houses. The other was a BULLSHIT source that you already used, and that I already kicked right up your ass, that was completely illegitimate. You just can't do this stuff, lesley - you're too ****ing dense. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote >> >>> 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. Of course he does, he speaks several languages for one thing. Show me a cow that can do that. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "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. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)... > > "The case is as follows: > > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt in > higher apes that they should be included." > > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. > >> There is >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey (food). > > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip> Non-sequitur |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> 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 > >>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie. > >>> You've got to admit > >> No. ****wit. > > > You must realize > > No. ****wit. Well, if you really don't, that makes it even funnier. This was a real classic, Ball. No wonder people call you a "poor, inept Goober". Surely someone with such an allegedly high level of education as you ought to know something about mathematics writing. Every word has to have a precise definition. If I introduce a term that isn't standard in the literature - as I did in my thesis, I introduced the term "quasi-connected" - then I have to give the definition. You really think I would just make up a word without giving the definition? You really thought you could catch me out by consulting an online dictionary? Any idiot could have seen that that must have been a standard term in the literature. Can you imagine how funny you would find it if I thought I was competent to comment on your work in economics? You are the one who started this ridiculous game of trying to put down my mathematical ability, and saying I don't do any maths anymore. And saying I won't win the Fields Medal, as if that were some sort of major criticism. But actually, for all you know, that paper could be Fields Medal material. What this is illustrates is that you will say *anything* to try and put someone down, no matter how ridiculous or ignorant. You don't care what an ass it makes you look. Either that or you don't know. And the way you're acting now only makes it even funnier. Keep it 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 6, 12:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > > On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.67551 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.797 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laudable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >> >> >> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Singer's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you consider raising livestock to be an example of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bizarre. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a theory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried >> > to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. >> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing so far > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >> led > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlighen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not saying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who didn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilitarianism not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to view > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my part. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Would you mind > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said something. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future time, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sentient being, like a chicken? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar in all morally relevant respects. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circular. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at stake for the affected parties. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why equal consideration should be given to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences of non-human beings. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on assertions you make. You must support the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not?" is not support. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - always. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I point out that existing institutions are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that lacks justification > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of justification. You fail. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're such a child > >>>>>>>>>>>> No. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* invite abuse. > >>>>>>>>>>> Endlessly repeating absurdities > >>>>>>>> Didn't happen from me. > >>>>>>> Yes, it did, > >>>>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse. > >>>>> Rational, decent people > >>>> You don't know anything about them. > >>> Do you labour under > >> You don't know anything about decent, rational people, > >> skirt-boy. > > > Well, that's a very interesting view you have there > > It's an established fact, rupie. Yeah, well, lots of things are established facts in your view, Ball. Tell us some more established facts. Is it an established fact that "axiomatizable" is not a word, despite the fact that it appears in a number of texts in mathematical logic? Is it an established fact that I am queer, despite the fact that I have had sexual and romantic feelings for the opposite sex since childhood and have never had any sexual or romantic feelings about men? Is it an established fact that I am going to be a career telemarketer, despite the fact that I am moving to Shanghai at the end of August to take up a teaching position? And tell us more about rational, decent people, Ball, since you know so much more about them than me. Do they mock people for having a history of mental illness, and repeatedly make groudnless assertions that they continue to have symptoms of mental illness? Do they abuse women and make groundless claims that they sell sexual services for money? Do they obsess about homosexuality and fabricate stories about people soliciting *** sex on houseboats? Gosh, I never realized that that was what rationality was. Tell us all about it, Ball. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:35:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Rupert wrote: [..] >> Yes, I lead a very comfortable life. So do you. > >Mine doesn't violate any of my professed values. I used to actually believe that, Jon, and that allowed you a free pass to some extent without having to justify the meat on your plate, but since learning that you believe there's an inherent inhumane aspect to killing animals it's certain that your chosen diet on them does violate a professed moral value. "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents." Rudy Canoza 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh You also lay poisons around your home to kill rodents, even while knowing that there's an inhumane aspect to killing them, and that again shows you're not living up to your professed moral values as well. I was very shocked to see this admission from you after all these years, and it seems I've been reading you wrong all this time, because only someone who's very callous would intentionally kill an animal while knowing it to be an inhumane act, and I didn't believe that you were a callous person until reading that recent admission from another newsgroup. |
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 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie. >>>>> You've got to admit >>>> No. ****wit. >>> You must realize >> No. ****wit. > > Well, if ****wit. |
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:
> On Jul 6, 12:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>> On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laudable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >> >> >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Singer's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you consider raising livestock to be an example of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bizarre. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried >> > to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. >> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing so far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >> led >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlighen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilitarianism not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Would you mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sentient being, like a chicken? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar in all morally relevant respects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at stake for the affected parties. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why equal consideration should be given to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences of non-human beings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on assertions you make. You must support the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not?" is not support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - always. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I point out that existing institutions are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that lacks justification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of justification. You fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're such a child >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* invite abuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Endlessly repeating absurdities >>>>>>>>>> Didn't happen from me. >>>>>>>>> Yes, it did, >>>>>>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse. >>>>>>> Rational, decent people >>>>>> You don't know anything about them. >>>>> Do you labour under >>>> You don't know anything about decent, rational people, >>>> skirt-boy. >>> Well, that's a very interesting view you have there >> It's an established fact, rupie. > > Yeah, well, lots of things are established facts Yes. The ****witted "vegan" perspective isn't one of them. |
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 15, 11:19 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered: > > > On Jul 6, 12:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>> On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.675 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965.7 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laudable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >> >> >> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Singer's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you consider raising livestock to be an example of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bizarre. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a theory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried >> > to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. >> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing so far > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >> led > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlighen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not saying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who didn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilitarianism not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to view > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my part. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Would you mind > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said something. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future time, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sentient being, like a chicken? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar in all morally relevant respects. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circular. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at stake for the affected parties. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why equal consideration should be given to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences of non-human beings. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on assertions you make. You must support the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not?" is not support. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - always. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I point out that existing institutions are based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that lacks justification > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of justification. You fail. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're such a child > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* invite abuse. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Endlessly repeating absurdities > >>>>>>>>>> Didn't happen from me. > >>>>>>>>> Yes, it did, > >>>>>>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse. > >>>>>>> Rational, decent people > >>>>>> You don't know anything about them. > >>>>> Do you labour under > >>>> You don't know anything about decent, rational people, > >>>> skirt-boy. > >>> Well, that's a very interesting view you have there > >> It's an established fact, rupie. > > > Yeah, well, lots of things are established facts > > Yes. The ****witted "vegan" perspective isn't one of them. Here is my "vegan" perspective. It is not morally decent to support animal agriculture in its present form, and going vegan is one rational thing to do with respect to the goal of reducing your expected contribution to animal suffering. You've never given any reason why this is an unreasonable perspective. Anyway, you're just trying to distract attention from my clear demonstration that just about everything which you claim is an "established fact" is a joke, and in particular this latest claim of yours about an "established fact" is an utter farce. |
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 5, 11:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> You can't meet your burden of proof. Established. > > > I can't if the formal principle of justice > > No such thing. > I've told you what it is many times. It was first formulated by Aristotle. Read some moral philosophy, you stupid ignorant twit. > >>>>>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of > >>>>>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit. > >>>>> No, it's elementary that > >>>> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who > >>>> makes the assertion. > >>> As discussed already > >> As bullshitted already... > > >> You don't meet your burden of proof. You make an > >> assertion, you have the burden of supporting it. Always. > > > I have supported it. > > You haven't, rupie. You have said that others must > disprove your assertion. That's a failure to support > on your part. It's shirking; whiffing off. > I've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny equal consideration to animals. You're maintaining that the burden of proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals, and you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met, because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the matter is more defensible and coherent than my view. > >>>>>>>>>> You're making an assertion, and > >>>>>>>>>> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to > >>>>>>>>>> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, > >>>>>>>>>> because the burden of proof is on you to support your > >>>>>>>>>> assertion. > >>>>>>>>> You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies > >>>>>>>>> without supporting it. > >>>>>>>> Because the support for my assertion is already well > >>>>>>>> known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. > >>>>>>> My view about where the burden > >>>>>>> of proof lies is based on a well-known and widely-accepted principle > >>>>>>> in moral philosophy. > >>>>>> Prove it. > >>>>> The formal principle of justice > >>>> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle. > >>> Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth > >> Argumentum ad verecundiam. > > > Depends > > No. > Snipping everything except the first word and writing "no" is not a response. You say that I must defend my advocacy of equal consideration for animals because it challenges the status quo. Well, all moral philosophers accept the formal principle of justice. It's really very basic stuff. By your own logic, if you want to overturn it, you should give some reason why. > >> You're full of shit. There is no such axiomatic principle. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's because you know > >>>>>>>>>>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't like to work. > >>>>>>>>>>> You really are quite charming. > >>>>>>>>>> yes. > >>>>>>>>> And brilliant. > >>>>>>> Thank you for the ass-kicking. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is really astonishing. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've made a good case. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must > >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show > >>>>>>>>>>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it > >>>>>>>>>>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. > >>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. > >>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you to support your > >>>>>>>>>> assertion, > >>>>>>>>> So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? > >>>>>>>> Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since > >>>>>>>> antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. > >>>>>>> Rudy, you can rest assured I know a lot more about logic than you. > >>>>>> No. > >>>>> You really are > >>>> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it. > >>> You're enjoying the > >> I'm enjoying kicking the shit out of you, boy. Yes. > > >>>>>>>>>> and you can't meet it. > >>>>>>>>> The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if > >>>>>>>>> they'd actually had to meet it. > >>>>>>>> They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than > >>>>>>>> simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others > >>>>>>>> disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally > >>>>>>>> entitled to equal consideration. > >>>>>>> Fascinating. How did they do it? > >>>>>> Go look it up. The fact is, they did it: the majority > >>>>>> of the U.S. already rejected slavery before the civil > >>>>>> war. Their methods are not important to me; they might > >>>>>> be to you. What is important is that the abolitionists > >>>>>> recognized that they had the burden of showing the > >>>>>> moral equality of races to skeptics, and they met their > >>>>>> burden. You haven't. > >>>>> I don't agree that there is any disanalogy > >>>> Not a word. > >>> Very interesting. > >> No. Your fabrication of phony words is not interesting. > > > I didn't make it up. > > You did. It's a phony word. It gets a huge number of hits on Google. It's obviously not something that I made up. I found it in the online Oxford English Dictionary. "disanalogy (rare). Want of analogy; a condition the reverse of analogous." In the quotations section the earliest quotation is "1610 W. Folkingham Art of Survey Pref. Verse 15 For Disanalogies strange, strained, rude, nor Deuiations curious, ill-scande" and the last is "1966 J. Katz. Philos. Lang. iii 35 There is a certain disanalogy here." It's a word. All this is irrelevant anyway, you tedious pedant. It's obvious what the intended meaning of the word is. You obviously have nothing to say in response to what I actually said. But for some reason you find the issue of whether I use correct English to be extraordinarily interesting. You even ludicrously think you can critique my paper by consulting an online dictionary. Boy, that was funny. > > >>>>>> And, of course, you can't, > >>>>>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position. > >>>>> Silly clown. > >>>> Stupid effeminate ass-suck. > >>> I'm not in the least effeminate, > >> Yes, you are, you limp-wristed little queer. > > Effeminate, dissipated little queer. Thanks for the entertainment, funny clown. >>>>>>>> You'll never even get started, because you know in your > >>>>>>>> tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* > >>>>>>>> morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't > >>>>>>>> have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely > >>>>>>>> dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any > >>>>>>>> moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy > >>>>>>>> girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of > >>>>>>>> moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The > >>>>>>>> façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. > >>>>>>> Silly fool. > >>>>>> non sequitur > >>>>> Very sequitur. > >>>> Thorough non sequitur. As ever. > >>> No, > >> Yes, it's non sequitur. Calling someone a silly fool when they are clearly being a quite remarkably silly fool is not a non sequitur. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:19 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered: >> >>> On Jul 6, 12:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>> On Jul 5, 4:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 3:24 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 3:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:59 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a completely different issue, the ideas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes that consuming meat is acceptable, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laudable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >> >> >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, then he is obviously challenging the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's not. He invented the idea of equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong advocate of it. This is what you don't get. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Singer's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of a theory that's consistent with equal >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you consider raising livestock to be an example of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bizarre. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is consistent with equal consideration. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried >> > to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain this to you you told me I was talking waffle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have made a greater effort to listen and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You utter a bunch or words but say nothing, exactly like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. >> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand language and the world well enough, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing so far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >> led >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to conclude that you have anything worthwhile to say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlighen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any further. If you did you probably would have done so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory which is consistent with equal consideration" is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. It's saying something. I can understand someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know very much about Peter Singer's preference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilitarianism not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding it very informative. But it's rather bizarre for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance about preference utilitarianism as a defect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have thought it would be more rational to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Would you mind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling me a bit more about what preference utilitarianism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, and explain equal consideration in plain English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then show how the two are consistent. Do all this in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intlligent person could go, Oh yeah, I see what you mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sentient being, like a chicken? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have no valid or reliable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of measuring satisfaction or utility, nor do they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any valid or reliable means of weighting it across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a challenge that can be raised, yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And not met by the ****witted utilitarians in any way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out in the part which you snipped, the challenge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to many other people, including you. The utilitarians do at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good a job of responding to it as anyone else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar in all morally relevant respects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Circular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the preference utilitarian has a theory about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respects are morally relevant: what is morally relevant is how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at stake for the affected parties. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ****witted utilitarians have coherent explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for why equal consideration should be given to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences of non-human beings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's ever given any good reason why it shouldn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof, which you consistently fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet, is on you to show that it should. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You are the ones who want to change something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on assertions you make. You must support the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions, and you can't; weakly blabbering, "well, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not?" is not support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - always. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I point out that existing institutions are based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that lacks justification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of justification. You fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's utterly absurd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are trying to overthrow the status quo. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of proof is on you to justify your desire for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose that, when nineteenth-century abolitionists argued for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abolition of slavery, they had said "The burden of proof is on you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why we should not give equal consideration to the interests of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark-skinned people as we would to the relevantly similarly interests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fair-skinned people". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't do that, little ****. Instead, they made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case. They didn't lazily and fecklessly assume it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you stupid **** - they made the case. You haven't, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's really no need for foul language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You practically beg for abuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're such a child >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *do* invite abuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Endlessly repeating absurdities >>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't happen from me. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it did, >>>>>>>>>> No, rupie, you stupid ****, it didn't. But you *do* invite abuse. >>>>>>>>> Rational, decent people >>>>>>>> You don't know anything about them. >>>>>>> Do you labour under >>>>>> You don't know anything about decent, rational people, >>>>>> skirt-boy. >>>>> Well, that's a very interesting view you have there >>>> It's an established fact, rupie. >>> Yeah, well, lots of things are established facts >> Yes. The ****witted "vegan" perspective isn't one of them. > > Here is my "vegan" perspective. It is not morally decent to support > animal agriculture in its present form, No better reason to support animal-killing vegetable agriculture in its present form. You have no coherent explanation for your dividing line. Your only reason is hyperemotional Bambi syndrome. |
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 5, 11:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> You can't meet your burden of proof. Established. >>> I can't if the formal principle of justice >> No such thing. >> > > I've told you what it is many times. It was first formulated by > Aristotle. Read some moral philosophy, you stupid ignorant twit. > >>>>>>>> The maker of the positive assertion bears the burden of >>>>>>>> proof. This is elementary, you ****wit. >>>>>>> No, it's elementary that >>>>>> It's elementary that the burden of proof is on he who >>>>>> makes the assertion. >>>>> As discussed already >>>> As bullshitted already... >>>> You don't meet your burden of proof. You make an >>>> assertion, you have the burden of supporting it. Always. >>> I have supported it. >> You haven't, rupie. You have said that others must >> disprove your assertion. That's a failure to support >> on your part. It's shirking; whiffing off. >> > > I've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny > equal consideration to animals. You're maintaining that the burden of > proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals, and > you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who > advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you > haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met, > because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it > somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own > view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the > matter is more defensible and coherent than my view. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You're making an assertion, and >>>>>>>>>>>> failing to support it. Instead, you tell others to >>>>>>>>>>>> disprove your assertion. They tell you to **** off, >>>>>>>>>>>> because the burden of proof is on you to support your >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion. >>>>>>>>>>> You're making an assertion about where the burden of proof lies >>>>>>>>>>> without supporting it. >>>>>>>>>> Because the support for my assertion is already well >>>>>>>>>> known in the rules of debate and logic, you ****wit. >>>>>>>>> My view about where the burden >>>>>>>>> of proof lies is based on a well-known and widely-accepted principle >>>>>>>>> in moral philosophy. >>>>>>>> Prove it. >>>>>>> The formal principle of justice >>>>>> ipse dixit. There is no such axiomatic principle. >>>>> Everyone who has studied moral philosophy in any depth >>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam. >>> Depends >> No. >> > > Snipping everything except the first word and writing "no" is not a > response. You say that I must defend my advocacy of equal > consideration for animals because it challenges the status quo. Well, > all moral philosophers accept the formal principle of justice. It's > really very basic stuff. By your own logic, if you want to overturn > it, you should give some reason why. > >>>> You're full of shit. There is no such axiomatic principle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's because you know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't, and also because you're a lazy **** who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't like to work. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You really are quite charming. >>>>>>>>>>>> yes. >>>>>>>>>>> And brilliant. >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the ass-kicking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you won't do it, because you and all other "aras" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are fundamentally lazy ****s. Your mental slothfulness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is really astonishing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've made a good case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't. You've assumed that which you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, and then smugly and smirkingly said, "show >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that our assumption is false." It's bullshit, and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has got you nowhe "ar" is dead in the water. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is one someone who makes a discrimination. >>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you to support your >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion, >>>>>>>>>>> So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why? >>>>>>>>>> Because those are the well-defined rules of logic since >>>>>>>>>> antiquity. If you're not up to it, then withdraw. >>>>>>>>> Rudy, you can rest assured I know a lot more about logic than you. >>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> You really are >>>>>> I really am kicking the shit out of you...and enjoying it. >>>>> You're enjoying the >>>> I'm enjoying kicking the shit out of you, boy. Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> and you can't meet it. >>>>>>>>>>> The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if >>>>>>>>>>> they'd actually had to meet it. >>>>>>>>>> They did meet it. They demonstrated, rather than >>>>>>>>>> simply treat as an axiom, or demand that others >>>>>>>>>> disprove the contention, that Negroes were morally >>>>>>>>>> entitled to equal consideration. >>>>>>>>> Fascinating. How did they do it? >>>>>>>> Go look it up. The fact is, they did it: the majority >>>>>>>> of the U.S. already rejected slavery before the civil >>>>>>>> war. Their methods are not important to me; they might >>>>>>>> be to you. What is important is that the abolitionists >>>>>>>> recognized that they had the burden of showing the >>>>>>>> moral equality of races to skeptics, and they met their >>>>>>>> burden. You haven't. >>>>>>> I don't agree that there is any disanalogy >>>>>> Not a word. >>>>> Very interesting. >>>> No. Your fabrication of phony words is not interesting. >>> I didn't make it up. >> You did. It's a phony word. > > It gets a huge number of hits on Google. It's obviously not something > that I made up. I found it in the online Oxford English Dictionary. > > "disanalogy (rare). Want of analogy; a condition the reverse of > analogous." > > In the quotations section the earliest quotation is > > "1610 W. Folkingham Art of Survey Pref. Verse 15 For Disanalogies > strange, strained, rude, nor Deuiations curious, ill-scande" > > and the last is > > "1966 J. Katz. Philos. Lang. iii 35 There is a certain disanalogy > here." > > It's a word. > > All this is irrelevant anyway, you tedious pedant. It's obvious what > the intended meaning of the word is. You obviously have nothing to say > in response to what I actually said. But for some reason you find the > issue of whether I use correct English to be extraordinarily > interesting. You even ludicrously think you can critique my paper by > consulting an online dictionary. Boy, that was funny. > >>>>>>>> And, of course, you can't, >>>>>>>> because you fundamentally don't believe your own position. >>>>>>> Silly clown. >>>>>> Stupid effeminate ass-suck. >>>>> I'm not in the least effeminate, >>>> Yes, you are, you limp-wristed little queer. >> Effeminate, dissipated little queer. > > Thanks for the entertainment, funny clown. > >>>>>>>>> You'll never even get started, because you know in your >>>>>>>>>> tiny black heart that non-human animals are *not* >>>>>>>>>> morally entitled to equal consideration. You don't >>>>>>>>>> have a *moral* case at all. Your case is entirely >>>>>>>>>> dependent on amoral emotional feelings rather than any >>>>>>>>>> moral reasoning. You're trying to dress up your weepy >>>>>>>>>> girlish feelings about animals in masculine language of >>>>>>>>>> moral philosophy, but it's a transparent fraud. The >>>>>>>>>> façade is shabby, and no one is fooled. >>>>>>>>> Silly fool. >>>>>>>> non sequitur >>>>>>> Very sequitur. >>>>>> Thorough non sequitur. As ever. >>>>> No, >>>> Yes, it's non sequitur. > > Calling someone a silly fool You didn't, ****. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jul 5, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 3, 3:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> On Jul 1, 6:50 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > >>> On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Following Dutch's reply to this ranting-and-raving post > >>>> of rupie's, I had to go back and revisit it. > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to > >>>>>>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of > >>>>>>> proof to meet? > >>>>>> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people > >>>>>> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal > >>>>>> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, > >>>>>> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that > >>>>>> you wish others to accept. > >>>>> Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. > >>>> No, it isn't. You *plainly* didn't understand what I > >>>> wrote. > >>> On the contrary, you plainly don't understand how burden of proof > >>> arguments work. > >> I plainly *DO* understand, rupie, and you plainly do not. You want to > >> make the assertion about moral equality: the burden of proof is on > >> you, and you fail to meet it. > > > You make an assertion about difference in moral status. > > YOU are the one making an assertion, rupie. Defend > it...if you can <snicker> > No, the situation is symmetrical. I am making assertions, you are making assertions. I maintain that, given the formal principle of justice, the burden is on you to explain why discrimination on the basis of species is justified. You say you don't have such a burden, that the burden of justification is mine just because my view happens to be a minority view at the moment, but you don't have a satisfactory account of how it would have been possible to argue adequately against racism under such conditions. > >>>>> You can't say the burden of > >>>>> proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. > >>>> Nor *did* I say that, rupie. Re-read it. > >> Did you re-read it, you stupid sniveling gutless ****? > > > Yes, I did just re-read it and my characterization of your position > > was > > utter bullshit. > > Yes. > I wrote "Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of proof to meet?" You wrote "Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you" This is not coherent. Suppose one person says "blue-eyed people are more entitled to consideration" and the other person says "brown-eyed people are entitled to equal consideration". It may be that one of them has a burden of proof, but it can't be both. To say that one of them has a burden of proof entails the other one doesn't. The notion of a burden of proof is asymmetrical. They can't both have a burden of proof. You've got to pick one. You seem to be saying the burden of proof rests with whoever is in the minority. But you haven't explained how those who were advocating abolition of slavery could have met their burden of proof under these conditions. > >>>>> Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining > >>>>> that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were > >>>>> not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to > >>>>> meet. > >>>> No, I never maintained that. Just how far up your > >>>> rectum did you have to reach to find that little > >>>> nugget, rupie? It's shit. I never said anything like > >>>> that. We never, at any point, were talking about what > >>>> those who supported unequal consideration for Negroes > >>>> (it's a proper noun, you idiot) said, because in their > >>>> society, it was just assumed; they didn't go around > >>>> making any assertions about it. > >>> Well, you *are* making assertions that animals are not entitled to > >>> equal consideration, repeatedly. > >> You began by asserting that animals deserve equal moral > >> consideration. You do not support your assertion (you can't.) The > >> burden is on you to support your assertion, NOT on anyone else to show > >> your assertion is false. Get busy. > > > It's sufficient for me to point out > > You "point out" nothing, ****. You make an assertion, > and you can't defend it. You're done. > I make an argument, you can't engage with it. You're done, you lose. > >>>> But suppose that a southerner who supported slavery, or > >>>> at least some form of unequal treatment for Negroes, > >>>> had gone to the north for a visit. And suppose further > >>>> that the place he visited had recognized, in a basic > >>>> sense, complete political and legal and moral equality > >>>> among different races and ethnicities - so much so that > >>>> no one who accepted that equality ever thought it > >>>> necessary to state the case for it, because it was just > >>>> reality. Now suppose this southerner is astonished at > >>>> this, and wants to tell the northerners that they've > >>>> got it all wrong, that Negroes do not deserve equal > >>>> moral (and thus political and legal) consideration. > >>>> Where does the burden of proof now lay, rupie? It > >>>> plainly lays with the southerner, who is the one making > >>>> an assertion. > >>> Very interesting. How does he meet it? > >> I'm not interested in "how" he might meet it, ****witted little skirt- > >> boy. > > > Why not? > > It's irrelevant, skirt-boy. See below. > > >> I'm only interested in pointing out that the burden is his, > >> because he is the one making the assertion. And of course, when you > >> assert - without support - that animals deserve equal moral > >> consideration, the burden of proof is on you...and you fail to meet > >> it. > > That. > But I maintain that this view is unacceptable because it can't account for how the abolitionists could have adequatly argued for the abolition of slavery. You maintain that they could have, but you haven't met your obligation to explain how. You haven't answered my criticism of your view. > >>>>> It was their opponents' job to refute them. > >>>> It was the opponents' - the abolitionists' - job to > >>>> support their assertion that Negroes were entitled to > >>>> equal consideration, and they met it. > >>> How? > >> Go read what the abolitionists wrote. I'm not doing your assignments > >> for you, rupie, you little skirt-boy. > > >>>> You can't meet > >>>> your similar burden. > >>>>> If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet, > >>>> They didn't have any burden of proof because they > >>>> weren't making any assertions at all, rupie. They were > >>>> simply going about life as they had always known it. > >>> Jolly good. But people who explicitly defend the status quo regarding > >>> animals, such as yourself, are making positive assertions > >> No. > > > Of course you are. > > No. > Right, so you're not making any positive assertions, you don't actually have anything to say about animal ethics. You just spend your time here calling people queers and whores. Fair enough. Well, I guess I don't have to anything in response except make fun of you, then. > >> You're not meeting your burden of proof, and that's all there is to > >> it. > > > If the presumption in favour of equal consideration > > No such presumption. > Well, I had something to say about certain unacceptable conclusions which would follow if that was the case, which you snipped. Apparently you have no reply to my argument, so you lose. > >>>>> then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't > >>>>> get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what > >>>>> you're claiming. > >>>> No, rupie, it would not have been. Those asserting the > >>>> moral equality of Negroes would have had the burden. > >>>> *Anyone* making such an assertion, regardless of the > >>>> direction of the assertion, always has the burden of proof. > >>>>> So make up your mind. > >>>> It already was, and is. > >>> So you're saying you can escape the burden of proof just by not saying > >>> anything. > >> No, I'm saying the burden is on you, and it is; and you fail. > > You fail utterly. > My argument is fine, you've made no satisfactory response to it. You've put forth an account on which the argument is unacceptable, I've made criticisms of it and you've got no satisfactory response. You're the one who's failed. > >>>>> Where does the burden of proof > >>>>> lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those > >>>>> who deny it? > >>>> It lies with whomever is making an assertion trying to > >>>> persuade someone else of some position contrary to the > >>>> one the listener holds _ex ante_. If it's a > >>>> segregationist trying to persuade an > >>>> equal-consideration adherent that consideration > >>>> shouldn't be equal, then the burden is on the > >>>> segregationist. If the roles are reversed, then the > >>>> burden is on the equal-consideration proponent. The > >>>> burden is always on the person making an assertion > >>>> intended to persuade. > >>> Great. So convince me that your view of the moral status of animals is > >>> the correct one. > >> No, you persuade me, skirt-boy. You won't, of course, because you > >> have no idea how to start. > > > If I said "I don't think that Negroes are entitled to equal > > consideration, you persuade me that they are", you would clearly have > > no idea how to start either. > > You're wrong, rupie. I do know. > Empty bluster. Talk is cheap. Show me how it's done. > Get busy defending your assertion, skirt-boy. > Let's go over it again, shall we? (1) The formal principle of justice, from Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". Treat like cases as like. If you make different judgements about two cases, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant difference between them. Universally accepted by moral philosophers. By your own account, if you want to overturn it the burden of proof is on you. (2) So if we maintain that it's okay to treat nonhuman animals a certain way but not okay to do the same thing to cognitively impaired humans, there's an obligation to point out a morally relevant difference, which hasn't been met. In other words, there's a presumption in favour of equal consideration of relevantly similar interests which hasn't been overturned. If the formal principle of justice is accepted, this argument has got to be engaged with and it hasn't. You say we shouldn't accept the formal principle of justice. No ethicist agrees with you. By your own account, the burden of proof is on you why we should reject the formal principle of justice. Furthermore, if we do reject the formal principle of justice, and if we also assume that the burden of proof is always on those who are in the minority, then I maintain there's no satisfactory way to account for how the abolitionists could have met their burden of justification for the abolition of slavery. They couldn't have done it without a presumption in favour of equal consideration. You say they could and did and you know how they did it, but it's all talk. Show us how they did it. > >>>>> It can't be on both. > >>>> I never said it was, rupie. You misread in order to > >>>> think I did. I said it could be *either*, depending on > >>>> who was talking to whom. > >>> So, if it's not a legitimate move to ask someone to justify a pattern > >>> of discrimination, > >> I didn't say that, rupie. > > > Well, what the hell are you saying then? > > I'm saying that you are failing to support your crucial > assertion. You are - an utter failure. > See above. Plenty of arguments in support of it, no satisfactory response so far. > >>> then can you give me just one historical example of > >>> a valid argument for ending discrimination? > >>>>> It must be on one or the other, and > >>>>> you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal > >>>>> consideration. > >>>> And I'm correct, given the context. > >>>> The problem for you in this, rupie, is that you are so > >>>> incoherently convinced of the *intrinsic* rightness of > >>>> what you believe, that you want to consider it > >>>> axiomatic. This is a very surprising position for > >>>> someone allegedly with a Ph.D. in mathematics. In > >>>> math, there are theorems that *become* axioms, but they > >>>> don't start out that way. Once a theorem is proved, it > >>>> may be subsequently taken as axiomatic in the > >>>> elaboration and proof of other theorems, but only > >>>> because the truth of the axiom was already proved, > >>>> rather than simply assumed out of thin air. > >>> You obviously don't know much about mathematical logic. > >> I know enough to know that axioms don't just exist in the ether, > >> ****wit. They first are proved, THEN they are used as axioms later > >> on. > > > Er, not really, no. > > Yes, really. I didn't do Ph.D. level maths, rupie, but > I did enough. I also know how axioms work in other fields. > Axioms are not proved. That is why we call them "axioms". You don't know what you're talking about. Never mind. > You can't merely assert something is "axiomatic", rupie. > We've all got to start somewhere. You apparently feel happy with asserting as an axiom that all humans have a higher moral status than all nonhuman animals and saying that anyone who disagrees has a burden of proof to meet, you have no obligation to say anything in defence of your position. Why don't you try getting that position published? See how well it's received. Every moral philosopher today accepts that there's an obligation to explain why humans are so damn special. Some think it can be met, others can't. But claiming the obligation doesn't exist is like claiming the earth is flat. Have you read that essay which Dutch is so enthusiastic about, the one which he thinks rebuts the argument from marginal cases? The author of that essay agrees with me: "When we affirm that some objects have inherent value while others do not, we treat them differently with regard to moral status. If this differential treatment is to be sound and not arbitrary, it must be justifiable by some relevant difference. This requirement is warranted by the Principle of Formal Equality which can hardly be avoided if we are to think consistently in practical matters. Presumably, the best way of formulating this principle is as follows: Cases which are relevantly similar, should be treated in a similar manner; a differential treatment requires a relevant difference. Applied to the question of moral status, this should be spelled out as follows: If we ascribe moral status to some objects and not to others, the first objects must have some relevant property to the required degree, and the other objects must lack this property, or at least not have it to the degree required. If this property is a necessary condition for moral status, its absence in other objects will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to them; while if it is only a sufficient condition, it must be lacking in other objects, and they must have no other properties in addition which are sufficient conditions for being ascribed moral status." Everyone agrees that the alleged difference in moral status between humans and nonhuman animals has to be explained, Ball. Some think it can be done, others don't. But what you're advocating, just saying "No, they have different moral status, everyone thinks so, you prove otherwise" is a childish, head-in-the-sand approach, and if such a move were legitimate then there would have been no way to adequately argue for the liberation of black people. If you tried to argue in a philosophy journal that this approach was good enough you would be laughed out of court. > >> You want your moral beliefs to be treated as axiomatically correct > >> from the outset, rupie, and I'm here to shove that right down your > >> skinny pencil-neck throat. > > > I'm taking the formal principle of justice > > Crap. Crap that assumes one of its basic premises as > axiomatic, so the entire endeavor is crap. > Yes, most moral philosophes do take the formal principle of justice as axiomatic. They see it as indispensible to the basic structure of moral justification. You want to argue for a different view and show how moral justification works on your view, why don't you have a go? See if you can get your exciting new theory published. > > > >>>> You *want* the proposition that animals deserve equal > >>>> moral consideration to be considered axiomatic, rupie, > >>>> but it is not. That's why there's still so much debate > >>>> on it. Your desire is motivated by > >>>> a) your irrationally passionate gut-level, not > >>>> intellectual, attachment to animals ("Bambi" > >>>> syndrome) > >>>> b) your basic philosophical laziness and inability > >>>> You don't *want* to have to prove the propostion, > >>>> because you're a lazy, narcissistic **** who likes the > >>>> easy life on your imaginary moral pedestal. You like > >>>> thinking of yourself as morally superior merely because > >>>> of having declared yourself free of cruelty to animals. > >>>> Your position is bullshit. > >>> I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone > >>> who wants to deny equal consideration. > >> You have not. > > > Yes, I have, > > You haven't, rupie. You've fallen back on mere (and > empty) ipse dixit. It's all you have. > See above. I've presented my argument, it's been presented in the literature many times before, and everyone agrees that it needs some kind of answer. You're happy with sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "you haven't met your burden of proof... la la la...", but no-one's going to take you seriously, certainly no-one in the academy and probably no-one here either. > >> You have consistently shirked your rhetorical > >> responsibility, and you always will. > > >> It is not axiomatic that animals deserve equal consideration, rupie. > >> That's just reality. > > > The formal principle of justice > > Crap. Something that, again, assumes that which it > must support. Burden of proof: NOT MET. |
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've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny > equal consideration to animals. Burden of proof is the responsibility of anyone who seeks to have an opinion accepted by others. There is not one burden that is held only on one side of a question. Also, you can't possibly seriously believe that "equal consideration for animals" is axiomatic. For starters, it is a revolutionary idea, and on the face of it it is extremely unintuitive, but even stipulating that it does not mean what it appears to mean as you say, you must see that you at the very least have the burden to explain it. Furthermore, any explanation that employs vague terms like "relevantly similar interests" must also explain them. Then you must explain all the apparent violations of the principle in the lives of people who expound it. You have barely scratched the surface of any of those responsibilities. > You're maintaining that the burden of > proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals, Only if you expect anyone to accept it. and > you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who > advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you > haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met, > because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it > somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own > view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the > matter is more defensible and coherent than my view. That's your argument? "You can prove your view is coherent either, therefore mine is just as good"? Surely you can do better than that. hell I could do better, and I think the principle is hogwash. [..] |
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 5, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jul 3, 3:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> On Jul 1, 6:50 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>> On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> Following Dutch's reply to this ranting-and-raving post >>>>>> of rupie's, I had to go back and revisit it. >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to >>>>>>>>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of >>>>>>>>> proof to meet? >>>>>>>> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people >>>>>>>> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal >>>>>>>> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you, >>>>>>>> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that >>>>>>>> you wish others to accept. >>>>>>> Hang on a moment. This is incoherent. >>>>>> No, it isn't. You *plainly* didn't understand what I >>>>>> wrote. >>>>> On the contrary, you plainly don't understand how burden of proof >>>>> arguments work. >>>> I plainly *DO* understand, rupie, and you plainly do not. You want to >>>> make the assertion about moral equality: the burden of proof is on >>>> you, and you fail to meet it. >>> You make an assertion about difference in moral status. >> YOU are the one making an assertion, rupie. Defend >> it...if you can <snicker> >> > > No, the situation is symmetrical. I am making assertions, you are > making assertions. No. You are making assertions. I was just going about my life minding my own business. You want me to change the way I live. Defend your assertions, or shut the **** up. >>>>>>> You can't say the burden of >>>>>>> proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P. >>>>>> Nor *did* I say that, rupie. Re-read it. >>>> Did you re-read it, you stupid sniveling gutless ****? >>> Yes, I did just re-read it and my characterization of your position >>> was >> utter bullshit. >> >> Yes. >> > > I wrote utter bullshit. >>>>>>> Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining >>>>>>> that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were >>>>>>> not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to >>>>>>> meet. >>>>>> No, I never maintained that. Just how far up your >>>>>> rectum did you have to reach to find that little >>>>>> nugget, rupie? It's shit. I never said anything like >>>>>> that. We never, at any point, were talking about what >>>>>> those who supported unequal consideration for Negroes >>>>>> (it's a proper noun, you idiot) said, because in their >>>>>> society, it was just assumed; they didn't go around >>>>>> making any assertions about it. >>>>> Well, you *are* making assertions that animals are not entitled to >>>>> equal consideration, repeatedly. >>>> You began by asserting that animals deserve equal moral >>>> consideration. You do not support your assertion (you can't.) The >>>> burden is on you to support your assertion, NOT on anyone else to show >>>> your assertion is false. Get busy. >>> It's sufficient for me to point out >> You "point out" nothing, ****. You make an assertion, >> and you can't defend it. You're done. >> > > I make an argument You make an assertion at the foundation of that argument, and you can't defend the assertion. >>>>>> But suppose that a southerner who supported slavery, or >>>>>> at least some form of unequal treatment for Negroes, >>>>>> had gone to the north for a visit. And suppose further >>>>>> that the place he visited had recognized, in a basic >>>>>> sense, complete political and legal and moral equality >>>>>> among different races and ethnicities - so much so that >>>>>> no one who accepted that equality ever thought it >>>>>> necessary to state the case for it, because it was just >>>>>> reality. Now suppose this southerner is astonished at >>>>>> this, and wants to tell the northerners that they've >>>>>> got it all wrong, that Negroes do not deserve equal >>>>>> moral (and thus political and legal) consideration. >>>>>> Where does the burden of proof now lay, rupie? It >>>>>> plainly lays with the southerner, who is the one making >>>>>> an assertion. >>>>> Very interesting. How does he meet it? >>>> I'm not interested in "how" he might meet it, ****witted little skirt- >>>> boy. >>> Why not? >> It's irrelevant, skirt-boy. See below. >> >>>> I'm only interested in pointing out that the burden is his, >>>> because he is the one making the assertion. And of course, when you >>>> assert - without support - that animals deserve equal moral >>>> consideration, the burden of proof is on you...and you fail to meet >>>> it. >> That. >> > > But I maintain that this view is unacceptable because it can't account > for how the abolitionists could have adequatly argued for the > abolition of slavery. You maintain that they could have, but you > haven't met your obligation to explain how. I don't have any such obligation. In fact, the only obligation I have in this entire affair is to point out that you can't defend your most basic assertion, and that you're a hypocrite. >>>>>>> It was their opponents' job to refute them. >>>>>> It was the opponents' - the abolitionists' - job to >>>>>> support their assertion that Negroes were entitled to >>>>>> equal consideration, and they met it. >>>>> How? >>>> Go read what the abolitionists wrote. I'm not doing your assignments >>>> for you, rupie, you little skirt-boy. >>>>>> You can't meet >>>>>> your similar burden. >>>>>>> If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet, >>>>>> They didn't have any burden of proof because they >>>>>> weren't making any assertions at all, rupie. They were >>>>>> simply going about life as they had always known it. >>>>> Jolly good. But people who explicitly defend the status quo regarding >>>>> animals, such as yourself, are making positive assertions >>>> No. >>> Of course you are. >> No. >> > > Right Right. >>>> You're not meeting your burden of proof, and that's all there is to >>>> it. >>> If the presumption in favour of equal consideration >> No such presumption. >> > > Well, I had something to say about certain unacceptable conclusions > which would follow if that was the case, which you snipped. It was crap. >>>>>>> then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't >>>>>>> get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what >>>>>>> you're claiming. >>>>>> No, rupie, it would not have been. Those asserting the >>>>>> moral equality of Negroes would have had the burden. >>>>>> *Anyone* making such an assertion, regardless of the >>>>>> direction of the assertion, always has the burden of proof. >>>>>>> So make up your mind. >>>>>> It already was, and is. >>>>> So you're saying you can escape the burden of proof just by not saying >>>>> anything. >>>> No, I'm saying the burden is on you, and it is; and you fail. >> You fail utterly. >> > > My argument is fine It's crap. You can't support your most basic assertion. It is not an axiom. >>>>>>> Where does the burden of proof >>>>>>> lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those >>>>>>> who deny it? >>>>>> It lies with whomever is making an assertion trying to >>>>>> persuade someone else of some position contrary to the >>>>>> one the listener holds _ex ante_. If it's a >>>>>> segregationist trying to persuade an >>>>>> equal-consideration adherent that consideration >>>>>> shouldn't be equal, then the burden is on the >>>>>> segregationist. If the roles are reversed, then the >>>>>> burden is on the equal-consideration proponent. The >>>>>> burden is always on the person making an assertion >>>>>> intended to persuade. >>>>> Great. So convince me that your view of the moral status of animals is >>>>> the correct one. >>>> No, you persuade me, skirt-boy. You won't, of course, because you >>>> have no idea how to start. >>> If I said "I don't think that Negroes are entitled to equal >>> consideration, you persuade me that they are", you would clearly have >>> no idea how to start either. >> You're wrong, rupie. I do know. >> > > Empty bluster. You keep telling yourself that, rupie. It might make the pain go away for a bit. >> Get busy defending your assertion, skirt-boy. >> > > Let's go over it again Let's have you defend your assertion, for the *first* time, skirt-boy. >>>>>>> It can't be on both. >>>>>> I never said it was, rupie. You misread in order to >>>>>> think I did. I said it could be *either*, depending on >>>>>> who was talking to whom. >>>>> So, if it's not a legitimate move to ask someone to justify a pattern >>>>> of discrimination, >>>> I didn't say that, rupie. >>> Well, what the hell are you saying then? >> I'm saying that you are failing to support your crucial >> assertion. You are - an utter failure. >> > > See above. Bullshit above, as usual. You can't defend your assertion. Someone might be able to defend it, but you can't. >>>>> then can you give me just one historical example of >>>>> a valid argument for ending discrimination? >>>>>>> It must be on one or the other, and >>>>>>> you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal >>>>>>> consideration. >>>>>> And I'm correct, given the context. >>>>>> The problem for you in this, rupie, is that you are so >>>>>> incoherently convinced of the *intrinsic* rightness of >>>>>> what you believe, that you want to consider it >>>>>> axiomatic. This is a very surprising position for >>>>>> someone allegedly with a Ph.D. in mathematics. In >>>>>> math, there are theorems that *become* axioms, but they >>>>>> don't start out that way. Once a theorem is proved, it >>>>>> may be subsequently taken as axiomatic in the >>>>>> elaboration and proof of other theorems, but only >>>>>> because the truth of the axiom was already proved, >>>>>> rather than simply assumed out of thin air. >>>>> You obviously don't know much about mathematical logic. >>>> I know enough to know that axioms don't just exist in the ether, >>>> ****wit. They first are proved, THEN they are used as axioms later >>>> on. >>> Er, not really, no. >> Yes, really. I didn't do Ph.D. level maths, rupie, but >> I did enough. I also know how axioms work in other fields. >> > > Axioms are not proved. Axioms *are* proved; once proved, they don't require further proof. >> You can't merely assert something is "axiomatic", rupie. >> > > We've all got to start somewhere. You may not begin by assuming something that you absolutely are required to demonstrate. >>>> You want your moral beliefs to be treated as axiomatically correct >>>> from the outset, rupie, and I'm here to shove that right down your >>>> skinny pencil-neck throat. >>> I'm taking the formal principle of justice >> Crap. Crap that assumes one of its basic premises as >> axiomatic, so the entire endeavor is crap. >> > > Yes, most moral philosophes do take the formal principle of justice Crap. >>>>>> You *want* the proposition that animals deserve equal >>>>>> moral consideration to be considered axiomatic, rupie, >>>>>> but it is not. That's why there's still so much debate >>>>>> on it. Your desire is motivated by >>>>>> a) your irrationally passionate gut-level, not >>>>>> intellectual, attachment to animals ("Bambi" >>>>>> syndrome) >>>>>> b) your basic philosophical laziness and inability >>>>>> You don't *want* to have to prove the propostion, >>>>>> because you're a lazy, narcissistic **** who likes the >>>>>> easy life on your imaginary moral pedestal. You like >>>>>> thinking of yourself as morally superior merely because >>>>>> of having declared yourself free of cruelty to animals. >>>>>> Your position is bullshit. >>>>> I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone >>>>> who wants to deny equal consideration. >>>> You have not. >>> Yes, I have, >> You haven't, rupie. You've fallen back on mere (and >> empty) ipse dixit. It's all you have. >> > > See above. Empty ipse dixit above. As usual. Crap. >>>> You have consistently shirked your rhetorical >>>> responsibility, and you always will. >>>> It is not axiomatic that animals deserve equal consideration, rupie. >>>> That's just reality. >>> The formal principle of justice >> Crap. Something that, again, assumes that which it >> must support. Burden of proof: NOT MET. And nothing has changed. |
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 15, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > I've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny > > equal consideration to animals. > > Burden of proof is the responsibility of anyone who seeks to have an > opinion accepted by others. There is not one burden that is held only on > one side of a question. Also, you can't possibly seriously believe that > "equal consideration for animals" is axiomatic. For starters, it is a > revolutionary idea, and on the face of it it is extremely unintuitive, > but even stipulating that it does not mean what it appears to mean as > you say, you must see that you at the very least have the burden to > explain it. Furthermore, any explanation that employs vague terms like > "relevantly similar interests" must also explain them. Then you must > explain all the apparent violations of the principle in the lives of > people who expound it. You have barely scratched the surface of any of > those responsibilities. > It's really very simple. If you're going to judge two cases differently, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant difference between them. That's really all it amounts to. Is species in itself a morally relevant difference? Well, you show me why. If you agree that species in itself is not a morally relevant difference, then you've conceded my point. "Relevantly similar interests" means "similar, in a sense relevant to morality". It's a lot less vague than your notion of "capability". As to the question of what practical consequences this would have and whether I'm living up to them, well, I plan to write some stuff exploring that further, but really, the question of how I behave is irrelevant. > > You're maintaining that the burden of > > > proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals, > > Only if you expect anyone to accept it. > > and > > > you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who > > advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you > > haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met, > > because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it > > somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own > > view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the > > matter is more defensible and coherent than my view. > > That's your argument? "You can prove your view is coherent either, > therefore mine is just as good"? Surely you can do better than that. > hell I could do better, and I think the principle is hogwash. > No. I've given the argument many times. It's a widely-discussed argument and all scholars in the field agree that it needs engaging with, including the author of that essay you like so much, I've given a quote twice which clearly indicates that. Here's what I wrote to Ball elsewhere in this thread. "Let's go over it again, shall we? (1) The formal principle of justice, from Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". Treat like cases as like. If you make different judgements about two cases, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant difference between them. Universally accepted by moral philosophers. By your own account, if you want to overturn it the burden of proof is on you. (2) So if we maintain that it's okay to treat nonhuman animals a certain way but not okay to do the same thing to cognitively impaired humans, there's an obligation to point out a morally relevant difference, which hasn't been met. In other words, there's a presumption in favour of equal consideration of relevantly similar interests which hasn't been overturned. If the formal principle of justice is accepted, this argument has got to be engaged with and it hasn't. You say we shouldn't accept the formal principle of justice. No ethicist agrees with you. By your own account, the burden of proof is on you why we should reject the formal principle of justice. Furthermore, if we do reject the formal principle of justice, and if we also assume that the burden of proof is always on those who are in the minority, then I maintain there's no satisfactory way to account for how the abolitionists could have met their burden of justification for the abolition of slavery. They couldn't have done it without a presumption in favour of equal consideration. You say they could and did and you know how they did it, but it's all talk. Show us how they did it." There it is. That's the argument, together with an explanation of why Ball's criticisms of it are inadequate. > [..] |
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 15, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> I've explained why the burden of proof is on those who would deny >>> equal consideration to animals. >> Burden of proof is the responsibility of anyone who seeks to have an >> opinion accepted by others. There is not one burden that is held only on >> one side of a question. Also, you can't possibly seriously believe that >> "equal consideration for animals" is axiomatic. For starters, it is a >> revolutionary idea, and on the face of it it is extremely unintuitive, >> but even stipulating that it does not mean what it appears to mean as >> you say, you must see that you at the very least have the burden to >> explain it. Furthermore, any explanation that employs vague terms like >> "relevantly similar interests" must also explain them. Then you must >> explain all the apparent violations of the principle in the lives of >> people who expound it. You have barely scratched the surface of any of >> those responsibilities. >> > > It's really very simple. If you're going to judge two cases > differently, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant > difference between them. That's really all it amounts to. Is species > in itself a morally relevant difference? Well, you show me why. If you > agree that species in itself is not a morally relevant difference, > then you've conceded my point. Moralstat99 answers that question. It's not "species in itself", it is that members of the human species stand alone in demonstrating the capability for moral agency. > "Relevantly similar interests" means > "similar, in a sense relevant to morality". Changing the order of the words is not an explanation. It's a lot less vague than > your notion of "capability". Nonsense, it is exceedingly nebulous, while capability is not vague in the least. An acorn contains the capability to become an oak tree, it lacks the capability to ever produce bananas. A human infant possesses the capability to become a rational, thinking moral agent, a chick does not. > > As to the question of what practical consequences this would have and > whether I'm living up to them, well, I plan to write some stuff > exploring that further, but really, the question of how I behave is > irrelevant. That depends. If your goal is to imagine a "perfect world" unrelated to the realities and constraints of the world in which we live then I agree. If your goal is to create a working moral framework which fits in the world and defines how we really act and think and what we can aspire to in our actual lives, then it is very relevant. The latter is my area of interest. >> > You're maintaining that the burden of >> >>> proof is on those who advocate equal consideration for animals, >> Only if you expect anyone to accept it. >> >> and >> >>> you're also maintaining that the burden of proof was on those who >>> advodated equal consideration for members of other races, but you >>> haven't explained how the latter burden of proof could have been met, >>> because you haven't got any idea how. You're just assuming that it >>> somehow was without any real evidence. You're not subjecting your own >>> view to critical examination. You haven't shown how your view of the >>> matter is more defensible and coherent than my view. >> That's your argument? "You can prove your view is coherent either, >> therefore mine is just as good"? Surely you can do better than that. >> hell I could do better, and I think the principle is hogwash. >> > > No. I've given the argument many times. It's a widely-discussed > argument and all scholars in the field agree that it needs engaging > with, Don't move the goalposts, sophist. I criticized your statement "you can't show that your view is more coherent than my view" as being childish and irrelevant. Scholars my hairy ass, what a drip you can be. including the author of that essay you like so much, These repeated sly references to the fact that I like this essay are gratuitous and irrelevant. You should like it a lot more than you let on. It is spectacularly logical, Mr Math. I've given > a quote twice which clearly indicates that. > > Here's what I wrote to Ball elsewhere in this thread. > > "Let's go over it again, shall we? > > (1) The formal principle of justice, from Aristotle's "Nicomachean > Ethics". Treat like cases as like. If you make different judgements > about two cases, you've got to show that there's a morally relevant > difference between them. Universally accepted by moral philosophers. > By your own account, if you want to overturn it the burden of proof > is > on you. The burden has been met, in Moralstat99 > (2) So if we maintain that it's okay to treat nonhuman animals a > certain way but not okay to do the same thing to cognitively impaired > humans, there's an obligation to point out a morally relevant > difference, which hasn't been met. In other words, there's a > presumption in favour of equal consideration of relevantly similar > interests which hasn't been overturned. Yes it has, in Moralstat99, you have read it, and you have "deferred" submitting your response until you "publish a paper" on it. drip > > > If the formal principle of justice is accepted, this argument has got > to be engaged with and it hasn't. You say we shouldn't accept the > formal principle of justice. No ethicist agrees with you. By your own > account, the burden of proof is on you why we should reject the > formal > principle of justice. We haven't, we have met the challenge, I challenge you to rebut the refutation of the AMC, here and now. Don't wait to "publish" something, see if it flies here. > > Furthermore, if we do reject the formal principle of justice, and if > we also assume that the burden of proof is always on those who are in > the minority, then I maintain there's no satisfactory way to account > for how the abolitionists could have met their burden of > justification > for the abolition of slavery. Rubbish. You have the OPPORTUNITY to make a positive case for your point of view, you have not. In addition, the AMC has been rebutted and you have failed to respond, spectacularly. > They couldn't have done it without a > presumption in favour of equal consideration. You say they could and > did and you know how they did it, but it's all talk. Show us how they > did it." > > There it is. That's the argument, together with an explanation of why > Ball's criticisms of it are inadequate. You still haven't done anything but repeat your demand that others bear the burden of proof, despite the fact that the burden has been accepted and discharged, and you have failed to respond. If you were thinking like a scientist there would be bells going off in your head like Westminster Abbey, yet you can't hear them. |
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" > lied in message ink.net...
> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: > > "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... > >> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: > > > > 'The serial bully: > > You stupid slut. 'The serial bully: ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication .. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm 'Warning signs It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be a potential rapist. Considering rapists have many personality types and use many different methods, it might seem impossible. However, certain behavioral characteristics have been observed in some rapists. These should be used cautiously as "warning signs", since non-rapists and other innocent people may also show similar behaviours. *Extreme emotional insensitivity and egotism. *Habitual degradation and verbal devaluation of others. *Tries to tell others what they are feeling and thinking as though it is his decision and not theirs. "She said no, but she meant yes". *Consistently uses intimidation in language or threatening behavior to get his way. Uses words like "bitch" and "whore" to describe women. *Excessive, chronic, or brooding anger. *Becomes obsessed with the object of his romantic affections long after his advances have been rejected. *Extreme mood swings. *Violent outbursts; lack of impulse control. *Aggressive and violent. *Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cruel behavior is seen. ...' http://www.answers.com/topic/rape ... > >> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. I do not lie. That's your domain, liar. > > There is plenty about it in that report > > There is nothing. Well, many workers are 'invisible'.. 'A special investigative report in 2003 by the Omaha World-Herald documented death, lost limbs, and other serious injuries in Nebraska meatpacking industry plants since 1999.73 Much of the evidence involved night shift cleaners, most of them undocumented workers. OSHA documents dryly recorded what happened: -"Cleaner killed when hog-splitting saw is activated." -"Cleaner dies when he is pulled into a conveyer and crushed." -"Cleaner loses legs when a worker activates the grinder in which he is standing." -"Cleaner loses hand when he reaches under a boning table to hose meat from chain." -"Hand crushed in rollers when worker tries to catch a scrubbing pad that he dropped." In all, the report concluded, nearly one hundred night shift cleaning workers in the state meatpacking industry suffered amputations and crushings of body parts in the period (1999-2003) reviewed by the investigative team. These severe injuries are just the tip of an iceberg of thousands of lacerations, contusions, burns, fractures, punctures and other forms of what the medical profession calls traumatic injuries, distinct from the endemic phenomenon in the industry of repetitive stress or musculoskeletal injury. Eric Schlosser documented a similarly gruesome string of deaths in the mid-1990s: At the Monfort plant in Grand Island , Nebraska, Richard Skala was beheaded by a dehiding machine. Carlos Vincente .. . . was pulled into the cogs of a conveyer belt at an Excel plant in Fort Morgan, Colorado, and torn apart. Lorenzo Marin, Sr. fell from the top of a skinning machine . . . struck his head on the concrete floor of an IBP plant in Columbus Junction, Iowa, and died. . . . Salvador Hernandez-Gonzalez had his head crushed by a pork-loin processing machine at an IBP plant in Madison, Nebraska. At a National Beef plant in Liberal, Kansas, Homer Stull climbed into a blood collection tank to clean it, a filthy tank thirty feet high. Stull was overcome by hydrogen sulfide fumes. Two coworkers climbed into the tank and tried to rescue him. All three men died. .....' http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/4.htm 'A list of accident reports filed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration gives a sense of the dangers that workers now confront in the nation's meatpacking plants. The titles of these OSHA reports sound more like lurid tabloid headlines than the headings of sober government documents: Employee Severely Burned After Fuel From His Saw Is Ignited. Employee Hospitalized for Neck Laceration From Flying Blade. Employee's Finger Amputated in Sausage Extruder. Employee's Finger Amputated in Chitlin Machine. Employee's Eye Injured When Struck by Hanging Hook. Employee's Arm Amputated in Meat Auger. Employee's Arm Amputated When Caught in Meat Tenderizer. Employee Burned in Tallow Fire. Employee Burned by Hot Solution in Tank. One Employee Killed, Eight Injured by Ammonia Spill. Employee Killed When Arm Caught in Meat Grinder. Employee Decapitated by Chain of Hide Puller Machine. Employee Killed When Head Crushed by Conveyor. Employee Killed When Head Crushed in Hide Fleshing Machine. Employee Killed by Stun Gun. Caught and Killed by Gut-Cooker Machine. .....' http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...atpacking.html 'Injuries in meatpacking and poultry plants happen at three times the rate of those in other manufacturing sectors. These are dangerous jobs because for example, workers, with knives in hand, must work next to each other in an assembly-line fashion, while trying to keep up with production demands and line speeds. UFCW members negotiate safety protections -- like safe line speeds, ability to report injuries without retaliation, safe and adequate equipment, establishment of safety committees that are trained, active and have a real voice -- into their contracts to assure a safe work environment in a dangerous industry. Numerous reports have been clearly shown the hazards workers face in this industry where--when left unchecked -- companies will place more care on their meat products than their employees. Below are various articles on safety and health news, alerts, or fact sheets affecting workers in the meatpacking and poultry industries. -On-the-Job Injury and Fatality Statistics -Injuries and Fatalities Among Immigrant and Hispanic Workers -Meatpacking and Poultry Industry Conditions -Bills In Congress -Personal Protective Equipment -Avian Influenza and Poultry Processing Workers -Heat Exposure -Townsend Skinner Alert -Ergonomics -Workplace Violence -Worker Fatalities to Remember REPORTS A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report shows what workers in the industries have been subjected to for years: -Dangerous line speeds -An absence of injury and illness monitoring by OSHA -Intimidation that leads to under-reporting of injuries -Department of Agriculture inspectors without adequate training for recognizing hazardous conditions The Human Rights Watch has issued two reports finding that the industries' largely immigrant workforce "contend with conditions, vulnerabilities and abuses, which violate human rights," including: -Life-ending injuries -Lack of compensation for injuries -Discrimination against immigrant workers -Illegal company actions to suppress workers' rights to form unions http://www.ufcw.org/your_industry/me...acts/index.cfm Ball will never admit to his "participation" in death, injury, and violation of human rights in the industry he supports. |
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:C58mi.113399$xq1.29169@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote: > > "Dutch" > 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. > > Of course he does, he speaks several languages for one thing. Show me a > cow that can do that. Can you or he speak cow? Anymoo, the ability to speak other languages has nothing whatsoever to do with moral personhood. Your evasion is noted. How sweet. |
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:4g8mi.113716$1i1.56876@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote: > > "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. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in > > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)... > > > > "The case is as follows: > > > > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities > > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this > > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and > > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour > > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in > > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt in > > higher apes that they should be included." > > > > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. > > > >> There is > >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those > >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey (food). > > > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip> > > Non-sequitur Evasion. It follows. And you said this was a great story.. 11 July 2007 07:58 > wrote > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4 Great story, thanks for sharing. --------------- 'DawnWatch: "An Ambivalent Vegetarian" in Self Magazine, July 2007 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 The July "special summer eating issue" of Self Magazine includes a fascinating article, by Elizabeth Devita-Raeburn, headed, "An Ambivalent Vegetarian: A food lover gets to the meat of the matter." (Pg 34) The author explores a struggle that many of us have felt, and that many people on this list might still be tackling -- weighing a taste for meat against the desire not to hurt animals. She opens with: "Every time I sit down to eat at a restaurant it is the same dilemma: Should I choose what I want or order vegetarian? Sometimes I am lucky and what I want is meatless. But if what I really want is the boeuf bourguignon or the veal pepperonata, I squirm, caught between moral horror, my taste buds and a desire not to be the 'weird' vegetarian." We learn that the writer's vegetarianism was originally "motivated more by a concern for calories than animals" and that a boyfriend prompted her first flip-flop. She writes, "I felt slightly guilty but my boyfriend's approval was ample compensation." During her time with him, she developed a healthier relationship with food than that which had first prompted her vegetarianism. She writes, however: "But untethering my calorie obsession from meat ended up making room for the bigger, knottier issue I had only dimly considered before -- namely, the animals. Although I had always been a dog lover, I'd never felt any special affinity for cows and sheep. But somewhere along the way (probably from the Italian boyfriend), I'd picked up a smattering of information about cuts of meat and where they came from. Increasingly, when I looked at a piece of beef on my plate, I no longer saw the calories I would have to jog off the next day. I saw something that looked unnervingly like flesh -- flesh not all that different from my own. This tugged my mind to uncomfortable comparisons. Skinned and butchered, how different would I look on a plate? How different was this piece of meat from me? "I didn't know. But the idea bothered me enough to launch myself back into vegetarianism, at least sporadically." She describes going on and off the veggie wagon. And she discusses what she read in science journals about the sentience of animals: "Fish may feel pain. Sheep could distinguish the faces of their peers -- and even human caretakers -- from strangers. Cows suffered anxiety. Chickens were able to utter different calls to communicate the ups and downs of life." She tells us she also read about Temple Grandin's methods of making slaughter less stressful and more humane for animals. She comments, "But the need for them made me feel even worse. Clearly these are not dumb, insensible creatures who are oblivious to whether they live or die. Quite the reverse. Does it matter whether they can think their way through a calculus problem or write a symphony? I couldn't help but sympathize with them for wouldn't I, too, feel hysteria if I knew my seconds were numbered. What made me so different from these animals? I wondered." She writes that we "relegate thoughts about the creatures we eat to about the same space we give to any crisis halfway around the world..." but she comments that "just because we turn our back on the situation doesn't mean it isn't there anymore." She also writes that she would love to let herself off the hook by saying she is not cut out for vegetarianism but, "That would presume real vegetarians, by some fluke of biology, have an easier time of it" when in fact she knows their commitment comes with a price. She writes that when she eats meat she wishes she possessed "a stronger moral character." And she ends by noting that, ironically, it is not other people but animals "who are forcing me to consider the depth and breadth of my humanity. Every time I pick up a fork." I think the article is terrific, and I am thrilled to see it in a leading mainstream magazine. Most of us have struggled with cravings for meat or (for vegans) cheese, plus the desire to order anything we want on the menu, weighing those against the desire to make the most compassionate choices. Yet I know that many people on this list have been vegetarian or vegan for a long time and no longer find it such a struggle. As vegetarianism moves more into the mainstream, it will become even less of a struggle, as the likelihood increases that there will be delicious meatless meals on menus. So please, check out the article and then send letters to Self Magazine, commending the coverage of the topic, and with encouraging comments for those in the process of going vegetarian. The more of these kinds of articles in mainstream magazines, the easier the transition will be for everyone. Send letters to letters @ self.com including your full name, address and telephone number. Remember that shorter letters are more likely to be published. And please be sure not to use any comments or phrases from me or from any other alerts in your letters. Editors are looking for original responses from their readers. I send thanks to Joan Dillon for making sure we saw this article. Yours and the animals', Karen Dawn (DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you, which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)' |
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" > lied in message ink.net... >> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: >>> "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... >>>> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: >>> 'The serial bully: >> You stupid slut. > > 'The serial bully: You stupid slut. >>>> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. > > I do not lie. You do - all the time. >>> There is plenty about it in that report >> There is nothing. > > Well, many workers are 'invisible'.. You slopped together two different [ahem] sources. |
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 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:56:31 +0100, "pearl" >
wrote: >"Dutch" > wrote >> pearl wrote: >> > "Dutch" > 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. >> >> Of course he does, he speaks several languages for one thing. Show me a >> cow that can do that. > >Can you or he speak cow? Anymoo, the ability to speak other >languages has nothing whatsoever to do with moral personhood. Actually it does. Moral personhood is related to inherent capabilities, i.e. advanced cognitive functions, of which the ability to speak several languages is an indicator. Specifically, the cognitive function in question directly related to moral personhood is the capability to act as a moral agent. >Your evasion is noted. How sweet. No evasion dearest, just plain reasoning. It'll all make sense to you someday. |
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 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" >
wrote: >"Dutch" > wrote in message news:4g8mi.113716$1i1.56876@pd7urf3no... >> pearl wrote: >> > "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. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in >> > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)... >> > >> > "The case is as follows: >> > >> > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities >> > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this >> > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and >> > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour >> > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in >> > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt in >> > higher apes that they should be included." >> > >> > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. >> > >> >> There is >> >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those >> >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey (food). >> >> > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip> >> >> Non-sequitur > >Evasion. It follows. It doesn't follow. Moral personhood is related to the capability for moral agency. Non humans have not demonstrated it. > And you said this was a great story.. > >11 July 2007 07:58 > > wrote > >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4 So what? |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... > >> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: > >>> "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... > >>>> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: > >>> 'The serial bully: > >> You stupid slut. > > > > 'The serial bully: > > You stupid slut. 'The serial bully: ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication .. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm 'Warning signs It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be a potential rapist. Considering rapists have many personality types and use many different methods, it might seem impossible. However, certain behavioral characteristics have been observed in some rapists. These should be used cautiously as "warning signs", since non-rapists and other innocent people may also show similar behaviours. *Extreme emotional insensitivity and egotism. *Habitual degradation and verbal devaluation of others. *Tries to tell others what they are feeling and thinking as though it is his decision and not theirs. "She said no, but she meant yes". *Consistently uses intimidation in language or threatening behavior to get his way. Uses words like "bitch" and "whore" to describe women. *Excessive, chronic, or brooding anger. *Becomes obsessed with the object of his romantic affections long after his advances have been rejected. *Extreme mood swings. *Violent outbursts; lack of impulse control. *Aggressive and violent. *Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cruel behavior is seen. ...' http://www.answers.com/topic/rape > >>>> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. > > > > I do not lie. > > You do - all the time. 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.' The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html > >>> There is plenty about it in that report > > >> There is nothing. > > > > Well, many workers are 'invisible'.. > > You slopped together two different [ahem] sources. No. You are desperately trying to ignore the death, injury and violation of human rights in the industry you support. <restore> 'A special investigative report in 2003 by the Omaha World-Herald documented death, lost limbs, and other serious injuries in Nebraska meatpacking industry plants since 1999.73 Much of the evidence involved night shift cleaners, most of them undocumented workers. OSHA documents dryly recorded what happened: -"Cleaner killed when hog-splitting saw is activated." -"Cleaner dies when he is pulled into a conveyer and crushed." -"Cleaner loses legs when a worker activates the grinder in which he is standing." -"Cleaner loses hand when he reaches under a boning table to hose meat from chain." -"Hand crushed in rollers when worker tries to catch a scrubbing pad that he dropped." In all, the report concluded, nearly one hundred night shift cleaning workers in the state meatpacking industry suffered amputations and crushings of body parts in the period (1999-2003) reviewed by the investigative team. These severe injuries are just the tip of an iceberg of thousands of lacerations, contusions, burns, fractures, punctures and other forms of what the medical profession calls traumatic injuries, distinct from the endemic phenomenon in the industry of repetitive stress or musculoskeletal injury. Eric Schlosser documented a similarly gruesome string of deaths in the mid-1990s: At the Monfort plant in Grand Island , Nebraska, Richard Skala was beheaded by a dehiding machine. Carlos Vincente .. . . was pulled into the cogs of a conveyer belt at an Excel plant in Fort Morgan, Colorado, and torn apart. Lorenzo Marin, Sr. fell from the top of a skinning machine . . . struck his head on the concrete floor of an IBP plant in Columbus Junction, Iowa, and died. . . . Salvador Hernandez-Gonzalez had his head crushed by a pork-loin processing machine at an IBP plant in Madison, Nebraska. At a National Beef plant in Liberal, Kansas, Homer Stull climbed into a blood collection tank to clean it, a filthy tank thirty feet high. Stull was overcome by hydrogen sulfide fumes. Two coworkers climbed into the tank and tried to rescue him. All three men died. .....' http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/4.htm 'A list of accident reports filed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration gives a sense of the dangers that workers now confront in the nation's meatpacking plants. The titles of these OSHA reports sound more like lurid tabloid headlines than the headings of sober government documents: Employee Severely Burned After Fuel From His Saw Is Ignited. Employee Hospitalized for Neck Laceration From Flying Blade. Employee's Finger Amputated in Sausage Extruder. Employee's Finger Amputated in Chitlin Machine. Employee's Eye Injured When Struck by Hanging Hook. Employee's Arm Amputated in Meat Auger. Employee's Arm Amputated When Caught in Meat Tenderizer. Employee Burned in Tallow Fire. Employee Burned by Hot Solution in Tank. One Employee Killed, Eight Injured by Ammonia Spill. Employee Killed When Arm Caught in Meat Grinder. Employee Decapitated by Chain of Hide Puller Machine. Employee Killed When Head Crushed by Conveyor. Employee Killed When Head Crushed in Hide Fleshing Machine. Employee Killed by Stun Gun. Caught and Killed by Gut-Cooker Machine. .....' http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...atpacking.html 'Injuries in meatpacking and poultry plants happen at three times the rate of those in other manufacturing sectors. These are dangerous jobs because for example, workers, with knives in hand, must work next to each other in an assembly-line fashion, while trying to keep up with production demands and line speeds. UFCW members negotiate safety protections -- like safe line speeds, ability to report injuries without retaliation, safe and adequate equipment, establishment of safety committees that are trained, active and have a real voice -- into their contracts to assure a safe work environment in a dangerous industry. Numerous reports have been clearly shown the hazards workers face in this industry where--when left unchecked -- companies will place more care on their meat products than their employees. Below are various articles on safety and health news, alerts, or fact sheets affecting workers in the meatpacking and poultry industries. -On-the-Job Injury and Fatality Statistics -Injuries and Fatalities Among Immigrant and Hispanic Workers -Meatpacking and Poultry Industry Conditions -Bills In Congress -Personal Protective Equipment -Avian Influenza and Poultry Processing Workers -Heat Exposure -Townsend Skinner Alert -Ergonomics -Workplace Violence -Worker Fatalities to Remember REPORTS A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report shows what workers in the industries have been subjected to for years: -Dangerous line speeds -An absence of injury and illness monitoring by OSHA -Intimidation that leads to under-reporting of injuries -Department of Agriculture inspectors without adequate training for recognizing hazardous conditions The Human Rights Watch has issued two reports finding that the industries' largely immigrant workforce "contend with conditions, vulnerabilities and abuses, which violate human rights," including: -Life-ending injuries -Lack of compensation for injuries -Discrimination against immigrant workers -Illegal company actions to suppress workers' rights to form unions http://www.ufcw.org/your_industry/me...acts/index.cfm |
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 ...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:56:31 +0100, "pearl" > > wrote: > > >"Dutch" > wrote > >> pearl wrote: > >> > "Dutch" > 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. > >> > >> Of course he does, he speaks several languages for one thing. Show me a > >> cow that can do that. > > > >Can you or he speak cow? Anymoo, the ability to speak other > >languages has nothing whatsoever to do with moral personhood. > > Actually it does. Moral personhood is related to inherent > capabilities, i.e. advanced cognitive functions, Then you must acknowledge that non-humans possess advanced cognitive functions. ... > '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) Dutch: That's all well and good, [..] ----------------------------------------------------- > of which the ability > to speak several languages is an indicator. Specifically, the > cognitive function in question directly related to moral personhood is > the capability to act as a moral agent. "related to" ... "indicator" .. *normally*. We're back to this.. '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 > >Your evasion is noted. How sweet. > > No evasion dearest, just plain reasoning. It'll all make sense to you > someday. You are like ball -- down sh*t creek without a paddle. |
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 ...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" > > wrote: > > >"Dutch" > wrote in message news:4g8mi.113716$1i1.56876@pd7urf3no... > >> pearl wrote: > >> > "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. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in > >> > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours later)... > >> > > >> > "The case is as follows: > >> > > >> > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive capabilities > >> > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is this > >> > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration and > >> > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the behaviour > >> > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral persons" in > >> > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for doubt in > >> > higher apes that they should be included." > >> > > >> > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. > >> > > >> >> There is > >> >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of those > >> >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is prey (food). > >> > >> > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip> > >> > >> Non-sequitur > > > >Evasion. It follows. > > It doesn't follow. How can you say that, when it does follow (*inevitably*). > Moral personhood is related to the capability for > moral agency. Non humans have not demonstrated it. Yes, they have. You've already accepted that they do, above. So what's going on? This is where Dutch kindly demonstrates how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict. 'Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict. ...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance > > And you said this was a great story.. > > > >11 July 2007 07:58 > > > > wrote > > > >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4 > > So what? Find some moral character instead of continually wriggling. |
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... >> pearl wrote: >>> "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... >>>> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net... >>>>>> lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied: >>>>> 'The serial bully: >>>> You stupid slut. >>> 'The serial bully: >> You stupid slut. > > 'The serial bully: You stupid slut. >>>>>> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar. >>> I do not lie. >> You do - all the time. > > 'Bullies You stupid ****. >>>>> There is plenty about it in that report >>>> There is nothing. >>> Well, many workers are 'invisible'.. >> You slopped together two different [ahem] sources. > > No. Yes. One had to do with workplace injuries and death in general - no mention of packing houses. The other was just worthless 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 in message
... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" > >> wrote: >> >> >"Dutch" > wrote in message >> >news:4g8mi.113716$1i1.56876@pd7urf3no... >> >> pearl wrote: >> >> > "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. And you go on to write (repeat) in another post in >> >> > this thread on 08 July 2007 23:39 GMT (two and a half hours >> >> > later)... >> >> > >> >> > "The case is as follows: >> >> > >> >> > Humans are classed as moral persons based on their cognitive >> >> > capabilities >> >> > along with potential, history or behaviour as moral beings. It is >> >> > this >> >> > "moral personhood" that qualifies them for full moral consideration >> >> > and >> >> > rights. No member of any other species has ever demonstrated the >> >> > behaviour >> >> > or characteristics that would qualify them to be called "moral >> >> > persons" in >> >> > the way that humans are. There is in *my* mind sufficient room for >> >> > doubt in >> >> > higher apes that they should be included." >> >> > >> >> > Nothing about inter-species relationships there. Of course not.. >> >> > >> >> >> There is >> >> >> a wide gap between human-animal relationships and our perception of >> >> >> those >> >> >> relationships when the animal is a family member and when it is >> >> >> prey (food). >> >> >> >> > 'Cognitive dissonance <snip> >> >> >> >> Non-sequitur >> > >> >Evasion. It follows. >> >> It doesn't follow. > > How can you say that, when it does follow (*inevitably*). It doesn't follow. >> Moral personhood is related to the capability for >> moral agency. Non humans have not demonstrated it. > > Yes, they have. You've already accepted that they do, above. No, I didn't. Social behaviours among family members do not equal moral agency. > So what's going on? This is where Dutch kindly demonstrates > how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and > behavior are in conflict. > > 'Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes > the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two > conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior > that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception > of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is > defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, > belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that > contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the > mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify > existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) > between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this > hypothetical drive. Some of these examined how beliefs often > change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict. > ..' > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Non sequitur >> > And you said this was a great story.. >> > >> >11 July 2007 07:58 >> > >> > wrote >> > >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1944147/4 >> >> So what? > > Find some moral character instead of continually wriggling. Stop projecting your inadequacies. |
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 in message
... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:56:31 +0100, "pearl" > >> wrote: >> >> >"Dutch" > wrote >> >> pearl wrote: >> >> > "Dutch" > 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. >> >> >> >> Of course he does, he speaks several languages for one thing. Show me >> >> a >> >> cow that can do that. >> > >> >Can you or he speak cow? Anymoo, the ability to speak other >> >languages has nothing whatsoever to do with moral personhood. >> >> Actually it does. Moral personhood is related to inherent >> capabilities, i.e. advanced cognitive functions, > > Then you must acknowledge that non-humans possess > advanced cognitive functions. ... You must acknowledge that they do not. >> '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) > > Dutch: > > That's all well and good, [..] Hack > ----------------------------------------------------- > >> of which the ability >> to speak several languages is an indicator. Specifically, the >> cognitive function in question directly related to moral personhood is >> the capability to act as a moral agent. > > "related to" ... "indicator" .. *normally*. Yes, w-o-r-d-s, don't abuse them. > We're back to this.. > > 'Brain potentials implicate temporal lobe abnormalities in > criminal psychopaths. <snip> No we're not back to that, what the hell is wrong with YOUR temporal lobes? > You are like ball -- down sh*t creek without a paddle. You think if you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick? |
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
> 'The serial bully: > .. is constantly imposing on others a false reality > made up of distortion and fabrication .. Kind of like the typical hyper-aggressive ARA? |
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 19, 4:53 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote > > > 'The serial bully: > > .. is constantly imposing on others a false reality > > made up of distortion and fabrication .. > > Kind of like the typical hyper-aggressive ARA? What utterly absurd nonsense. |
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, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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. > So you can tell from looking at my photo that I'm homosexual, right? Go on, say it. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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 contemptible behaviour, your ridiculous childishness, your absurdly distorted views of reality, and your lack of insight into how lame you appear to others, are what speak for themselves. > >>>>> 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. You really don't, Ball. You scarcely have a clue about anything. There are many, many examples of this. Here's one: you actually think you're scoring points with all this silly childish nonsense about me being queer, don't you, as opposed to making a pathetic clown of yourself? You think, when you talk absurd nonsense about my photo you're actually scoring some sort of point, as opposed to making me howl with laughter? That this is how mature people behave, and I'm the one who's the "immature boy"? You really don't have the slightest clue about what a complete joke just about everything you say is, do you? |
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 |