On Jul 12, 5:27 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jul 11, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not
> >> > with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not
> >> > very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very
> >> > decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments
> >> > either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me
> >> > with interesting information, and given me food for thought.
>
> >> Doesn't that sound a little contradictory to you?
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Knee-jerk.
>

No, just a statement of my opinion, a correct opinion as it happens.

> > You draw attention to certain facts which pose genuine
> > challenges for the positions that are out there in the literature.
> > However, the conclusions that you draw from them are in my view too
> > strong, and in my view you haven't done a very good job of arguing
> > cogently for these conclusions. Hence my disagreement with you.
>
> Sounds to me like we've done a better job than you in raising cogent
> arguments.
>

I'm afraid not. Ball, for example, has explicitly said repeatedly that
these considerations entail that no serious criticism can be made of
the status quo, which is a complete joke. None of you has done
anything worthwhile by way of showing why any of you have a position
which is preferable to mine or that of any other "ARA".

>
>
> >> For all your alleged
> >> superior reasoning, powers of articulation and genuine intellectual
> >> abilities I haven't heard one thing memorable from you.
>
> > I'm not much impressed by anything you've said either.
>
> That's not what you said right above.
>

I think that some of the considerations raised here, none of which you
came up with, raise interesting questions for some of the positions
out there in the literature. That's not to say that you've come up
with a preferable alternative position. I don't think you or anyone
else has done anything worthwhile by way of demonstrating that your
position is preferable to anyone else's.

> > I think I've
> > made a few points which deserve more serious consideration than you've
> > given them. It doesn't really matter, anyway. You've openly abandoned
> > any attempt at engaging in reasoned argument. So what's to talk about?
>
> I have lost any optimism I had for a fruitful dialogue but I am still
> reading your replies, so you still have the opportunity to make a positive
> impression if you can.
>

I have no interest in making a positive impression on you. I have no
respect for your judgement and I think that a lot of the criticisms
you make of what I say are farcical. I don't think you're engaging
with what I say in a serious way. I also think you're a presumptuous
and obnoxious git, and your nerve in suggesting that I am the one who
is being offensive is just incredible. I also think that your
derogatory comments and your attempts to put me down are laughable,
like Jonathan Ball's.

There's no reason why I should bother myself with trying to make a
positive impression on you. I regular make positive impressions on
people whose judgement I respect, and I will continue to do so.

I'm happy to try to do more by way of articulating and defending my
position, just for the sake of the exercise. You may start to engage
with it in a way that I actually respect and find interesting, or you
may continue with the same rubbish.

> In my opinion all the hand-wringing about verbal abuse

It's not "hand-wringing". I'm just telling you people what I think of
you.

> has just become an
> unfortunate but convenient distraction. If you have something worthwhile to
> contribute then forget the crap and lets hear it. I'll say though, I don't
> believe that will happen, not because you're upset at us or because you're
> not articulate, but because these ideas you have chosen to embrace are
> simply not coherent ideas. They can only be expressed by the circuitous,
> vague verbiage that you, DeGrazia and Regan all use.

Fine. Well, I'll attempt to elaborate further, and if you like you can
try to convince me that your position is somehow less "vague" and more
"coherent", and better-founded. Then everyone can make up their own
mind.

On Jul 15, 5:18 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604.6 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182035965 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

So, if someone says that there's a moral obligation to boycott any
part of agriculture as it now exists, they've thereby committed
themselves to saying there's a moral obligation to boycott all of
agriculture. Do you really expect anyone to take this rubbish
seriously?

I've given some indication of what the criteria are for where to draw
the line. Everyone draws the line somewhere. You've got no better
foundation for the place where you choose to draw the line than I do.

Rupert wrote:
> 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.

Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:27 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>> You can try to put the blame on me if you like, but the problem is not
>>>>> with me, it's you people. The simple fact is that you people are not
>>>>> very reasonable, and the way you conduct yourselves is not very
>>>>> decent. And you're often not very good at formulating cogent arguments
>>>>> either. However you have made some interesting points and provided me
>>>>> with interesting information, and given me food for thought.
>>>> Doesn't that sound a little contradictory to you?
>>> No, it's not.
>> Knee-jerk.
>>
>
> No, just a statement of my opinion, a correct opinion as it happens.
>
>>> You draw attention to certain facts which pose genuine
>>> challenges for the positions that are out there in the literature.
>>> However, the conclusions that you draw from them are in my view too
>>> strong, and in my view you haven't done a very good job of arguing
>>> cogently for these conclusions. Hence my disagreement with you.
>> Sounds to me like we've done a better job than you in raising cogent
>> arguments.
>>
>
> I'm afraid not. Ball, for example, has explicitly said repeatedly that
> these considerations entail that no serious criticism can be made of
> the status quo, which is a complete joke. None of you has done
> anything worthwhile by way of showing why any of you have a position
> which is preferable to mine or that of any other "ARA".
>
>>
>>>> For all your alleged
>>>> superior reasoning, powers of articulation and genuine intellectual
>>>> abilities I haven't heard one thing memorable from you.
>>> I'm not much impressed by anything you've said either.
>> That's not what you said right above.
>>
>
> I think that some of the considerations raised here, none of which you
> came up with, raise interesting questions for some of the positions
> out there in the literature. That's not to say that you've come up
> with a preferable alternative position. I don't think you or anyone
> else has done anything worthwhile by way of demonstrating that your
> position is preferable to anyone else's.
>
>>> I think I've
>>> made a few points which deserve more serious consideration than you've
>>> given them. It doesn't really matter, anyway. You've openly abandoned
>>> any attempt at engaging in reasoned argument. So what's to talk about?
>> I have lost any optimism I had for a fruitful dialogue but I am still
>> reading your replies, so you still have the opportunity to make a positive
>> impression if you can.
>>
>
> I have no interest in making a positive impression on you. I have no
> respect for your judgement and I think that a lot of the criticisms
> you make of what I say are farcical. I don't think you're engaging
> with what I say in a serious way. I also think you're a presumptuous
> and obnoxious git, and your nerve in suggesting that I am the one who
> is being offensive is just incredible. I also think that your
> derogatory comments and your attempts to put me down are laughable,
> like Jonathan Ball's.
>
> There's no reason why I should bother myself with trying to make a
> positive impression on you. I regular make positive impressions on
> people whose judgement I respect, and I will continue to do so.
>
> I'm happy to try to do more by way of articulating and defending my
> position, just for the sake of the exercise. You may start to engage
> with it in a way that I actually respect and find interesting, or you
> may continue with the same rubbish.
>
>> In my opinion all the hand-wringing about verbal abuse
>
> It's not "hand-wringing". I'm just telling you people what I think of
> you.
>
>> has just become an
>> unfortunate but convenient distraction. If you have something worthwhile to
>> contribute then forget the crap and lets hear it. I'll say though, I don't
>> believe that will happen, not because you're upset at us or because you're
>> not articulate, but because these ideas you have chosen to embrace are
>> simply not coherent ideas. They can only be expressed by the circuitous,
>> vague verbiage that you, DeGrazia and Regan all use.
>
> Fine. Well, I'll attempt to elaborate further,

Don't "elaborate further", speak in plain English.

and if you like you can
> try to convince me that your position is somehow less "vague" and more
> "coherent", and better-founded. Then everyone can make up their own
> mind.
>

It's already been done to death, your inability to grasp it or remember
it are not my problem.

Rupert wrote:

> I've given some indication of what the criteria are for where to draw
> the line. Everyone draws the line somewhere. You've got no better
> foundation for the place where you choose to draw the line than I do.

That's not his burden, "ARAs" claim that meat eaters are drawing the
line at the wrong place, you can't support this logically.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:18 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, if someone says that there's a moral obligation to boycott any
> part of agriculture as it now exists, they've thereby committed
> themselves to saying there's a moral obligation to boycott all of
> agriculture. Do you really expect anyone to take this rubbish
> seriously?

I expect them to give up their fatuous and
unsupportable moral beliefs about animals.

Rupert wrote:
> 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

Your fruity photo.


>>>>>>>>>>> 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

**** off, squirt.


>>>>>>> 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

I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.

Rupert wrote:
> 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.

Not the part about the typical hyper-aggressive "ara".

On Jul 20, 2:38 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > I've given some indication of what the criteria are for where to draw
> > the line. Everyone draws the line somewhere. You've got no better
> > foundation for the place where you choose to draw the line than I do.
>
> That's not his burden, "ARAs" claim that meat eaters are drawing the
> line at the wrong place, you can't support this logically.

Well, I think I can, and I also think there are fairly compelling
arguments in the literature for this contention, and I plan to
elaborate further on the matter. But, in any case, the situation is
symmetrical. He's claiming that I'm drawing the line in the wrong
place, inasmuch as I'm wrong to say that what ordinary people do is
morally wrong. If he's set himself the task of persuading me that I've
got a good reason to accept this view, he hasn't succeeded. If he's
set himself the task of convincing me that he's a ridiculous clown,
he's done an excellent job.

On Jul 20, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 5:18 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182053604 ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:11820359 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > So, if someone says that there's a moral obligation to boycott any
> > part of agriculture as it now exists, they've thereby committed
> > themselves to saying there's a moral obligation to boycott all of
> > agriculture. Do you really expect anyone to take this rubbish
> > seriously?
>
> I expect them to give up their fatuous and
> unsupportable moral beliefs about animals.

Do you think you've given any reason why those beliefs should be given
up which deserves to be taken seriously?

On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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
>
> Your fruity photo.
>

Could you stop beating about the bush and just say "I know from
looking at your photo that you have sex with men"? Just say it.
Please. It would really make my day.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
>
> **** off, squirt.
>
> >>>>>>> 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
>
> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.

Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?

shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> On Jul 20, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 5:18 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> So, if someone says that there's a moral obligation to boycott any
>>> part of agriculture as it now exists, they've thereby committed
>>> themselves to saying there's a moral obligation to boycott all of
>>> agriculture. Do you really expect anyone to take this rubbish
>>> seriously?
>> I expect them to give up their fatuous and
>> unsupportable moral beliefs about animals.
>
> Do you think you've given any reason why those beliefs should be given
> up which deserves to be taken seriously?

Yes: there is no case for 'ar' that doesn't depend on
an unprovable assertion, and the ****wits - YOU - are
living their lives in direct violation of the supposed
beliefs. As the living of the lives is the truth and
the so-called beliefs are clearly seen as a lie, the
beliefs must go.

You fatuous punk.

fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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
>> Your fruity photo.
>>
>
> Could you stop beating about the bush

Your photo is extremely fruity.


>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> **** off, squirt.
>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
>
> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?

You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
infuriating. I can smell your rage.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:38 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> I've given some indication of what the criteria are for where to draw
>>> the line. Everyone draws the line somewhere. You've got no better
>>> foundation for the place where you choose to draw the line than I do.
>> That's not his burden, "ARAs" claim that meat eaters are drawing the
>> line at the wrong place, you can't support this logically.
>
> Well, I think I can,

Then do it, stop making empty promises and blathering about the
so-called "litrachure".

> and I also think there are fairly compelling
> arguments in the literature for this contention, and I plan to
> elaborate further on the matter. But, in any case, the situation is
> symmetrical. He's claiming that I'm drawing the line in the wrong
> place, inasmuch as I'm wrong to say that what ordinary people do is
> morally wrong.

It's not symmetrical, you're the ones (you vegans) attacking people for
killing animals whilst doing it yourself.


> If he's set himself the task of persuading me that I've
> got a good reason to accept this view, he hasn't succeeded. If he's
> set himself the task of convincing me that he's a ridiculous clown,
> he's done an excellent job.

Good, and you've convinced me that you are a colossal phony.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> 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.

'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
>
> You stupid ****.

'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.
>
> Yes. One had to do with workplace injuries and death
> in general - no mention of packing houses. The other
> was just worthless bullshit.

No. You are desperately trying to ignore the death, injury
and violation of human rights in the industry you support.
Snip and avoid addressing it, and prove the point again..

<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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:fmsni.129139$1i1.60953@pd7urf3no...
> "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.

It does.

> >> 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.

Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.

> > 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

'The Longest River: Denial
...
... denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful
psychological defense;
...
http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm.

> >> > 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.

That's you looking at your own reflection, as ever, and always.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Fitni.128270$xq1.19805@pd7urf1no...
> "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.

Hardly. You must acknowledge that they do.

> >> '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

What? Are you upset that I cut your shoddy goalpost move?

> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> 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.

W-h-a-t? Have you completely and utterly lost the plot?

> > 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?

We are very much back to that. Why do you keep running from it?

<restore>

'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

<>

> > You are like ball -- down sh*t creek without a paddle.
>
> You think if you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick?

You think wildy slinging **it is going to get you out of it?

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Bktni.129198$1i1.95792@pd7urf3no...

> "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?

Way to go!

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.

People who know me tell me they think that I am a
nice person. But what about you? You are a nasty
piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
You support an industry which disrespects the lives
of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
disease and an early death in the human population.
In your support for all of this death and destruction
you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
experience the same treatment that you support being
brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>> 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.
>
> 'The serial bully:

The stupid slut...


>>>>>>>> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar.
>>>>> I do not lie.
>>>> You do - all the time.
>>> 'Bullies
>> You stupid ****.
>
> 'Bullies project

The stupid lying slut...


>>>>>>> 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.
>
> No.

Yes. One of your sources, apparently credible was
about workplace injuries and deaths in general. It did
not mention packing houses. The other was a sloppy bit
of extremest bullshit.


> <restore>

[resnip bullshit]

We don't address bullshit.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
[..]

>>>> 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.
>
> Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.

Animal social behaviours are not indicative of a capacity for moral
agency, not even Regan makes that claim.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
>
> People who know me tell me they think that I am a
> nice person. But what about you?

People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.

> You are a nasty
> piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
> You support an industry which disrespects the lives
> of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
> and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
> kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
> disease and an early death in the human population.
> In your support for all of this death and destruction
> you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
> CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
> And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
> really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
> experience the same treatment that you support being
> brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?

Based on that self-serving rant, 99% of the people on earth are brutal
monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Z4uoi.135921$1i1.117097@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
> >
> > People who know me tell me they think that I am a
> > nice person. But what about you?
>
> People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.

People who know you here, know that you are a liar.

> > You are a nasty
> > piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
> > You support an industry which disrespects the lives
> > of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
> > and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
> > kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
> > disease and an early death in the human population.
> > In your support for all of this death and destruction
> > you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
> > CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
> > And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
> > really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
> > experience the same treatment that you support being
> > brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?
>
> Based on that self-serving rant,

It is a calm and well thought through statement of fact.

> 99% of the people on earth are brutal
> monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?

Most of the human population is vegetarian to near-vegetarian.
Meat is eaten to augment a plant-based diet. In the 'first world'
the population had been led to believe that meat is an essential
component of people's diet, and you who have made a virtual
career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.
Doesn't it make you feel like a monster without conscience?

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold
blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"
[syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or
resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and
inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises"
...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had
taken.
....
The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our
relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments,
our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
....'
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >> 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.
> >
> > 'The serial bully:
>
> The 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
> >> You stupid ****.
> >
> > 'Bullies project
>
> The stupid lying slut...

'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.
> >> Yes. One had to do with workplace injuries and death
> >> in general - no mention of packing houses. The other
> >> was just worthless bullshit.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes. One of your sources, apparently credible was
> about workplace injuries and deaths in general. It did
> not mention packing houses. The other was a sloppy bit
> of extremest bullshit.
>
> > <restore>
>
> [resnip bullshit]
>
> We don't address bullshit.

Ball desperately trying to ignore the death, injury and
violation of human rights in the industry he supports.

<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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:dwtoi.134477$xq1.89095@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >>>> 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.
> >
> > Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.
>
> Animal social behaviours are not indicative of a capacity for moral
> agency, not even Regan makes that claim.

'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) and that they display moral
sensibility. What we observe when animals interact with one another
tells us a lot about what's happening inside their heads and hearts.
Animals' lives are very public, not hidden, private, or secret, and
the privacy of mind argument that we can never know what
animals are thinking or feeling is over-used and goes against solid
arguments based on evolutionary continuity and ethological and
neurobiological data.

In my presentation I will stress the importance of interdisciplinary
research and collaboration for coming to terms with various
aspects of animal emotions and morality. I will also discuss
anthropomorphism and why it is a very useful and inevitable way
to describe and explain animal behavior. To make my case about
animal morality I will focus on the details of social play behavior -
the many ways in which animals play fairly and honestly signal
their intentions - and also discuss research on inequity aversion
in animals. When animals play they carefully signal their intentions
to cooperate and to play, they trust that playmates will obey the
rules of fair play, and they forgive and apologize to one another
so that play can continue as play and not escalate to aggression.
Individuals fine-tune their interactions "on the run" by paying
attention to what is happening from moment to moment.

I will also argue that cognitive ethology is the unifying science
for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral
lives of animals because it's essential to know what animals do,
think, and feel as they go about their daily routines in the company
of their friends and when they are alone. Research on mirror
neurons is also important to factor into discussions of fair play
and moral behavior. It is essential to learn why both the similarities
and differences between humans and other animals have evolved.
The more we come to understand other animals the more we will
appreciate them as the amazing beings they are and the more we
will come to understand ourselves. If humans are moral beings
then so are other animals. We are not alone in the moral arena.

Finally, I will argue not only that individual animals matter, but so
does what they feel, and what they feel is very much related to
how they behave. Surely, a whimpering dog, a playing wolf having
fun on the run and doing "what's right", and a grieving chimpanzee
or elephant feel something. They are not unfeeling objects. And
what animals feel matters very much as they try to negotiate their
lives in a human-dominated and often abusive world in which we
attempt to manage their lives for our and not their benefit. I am
incredulous that some skeptics actually question whether animals
feel anything (and even if they think).

We owe it to all individual animals to make every attempt to come
to a greater understanding and appreciation for who they are -
emotional, empathic, and often moral beings - in their own worlds.
And, when we're not sure about what they're feeling, we should
leave them alone. Quite often good welfare isn't good enough -
offering animals food, a bed, and health insurance just isn't enough.
They deserve more and we can always do better. This sort of respect
will go a long way toward ending, once and for all, the unnecessarily
cruel treatment to which far too many non-consenting individuals
are subjected each and every second of each and every day.

Some references:

Bekoff, M. 1994. Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness,
and morality in animals. Biology & Philosophy 19: 489-520.

Allen, C., and M. Bekoff. 2005. Animal play and the evolution of
social morality: An ethological approach. Topoi 24, 125-135.

Bekoff, M. 2006. Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive
ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective,
emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals. Zygon (Journal of
Religion and Science) 41, 71-104.

Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading
Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and why
They Matter . New World Library, Novato, California .
_______

Marc Bekoff is Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado ,
Boulder , and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his
scientific research including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a
prolific writer with more than 200 articles as well two encyclopedias
to his credit. The author or editor of numerous books, including the
Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Ten Trusts:
What We Must Do to Care for the Animals We Love (with Jane
Goodall), and The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, his most
recent books include The Smile of a Dolphin, Minding Animals,
Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating
Nature, The Emotional Lives of Animals, and Animals Matter. In
2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community
Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior
citizens, and prisoners.
Marc Bekoff's website: http://literati.net/Bekoff.

More (EETA): www.ethologicalethics.org

Books:
New: The Emotional Lives of Animals, [..]

Animals Matter

Centre for Bioethics at Karolinska Institutet & Uppsala University
With support from:

[..]

http://www.bioethics.uu.se/symposium...ts/bekoff.html

pearl wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
>>> People who know me tell me they think that I am a
>>> nice person. But what about you?
>> People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.
>
> People who know you here, know that you are a liar.

No they don't, people who know that I oppose their hateful bullshit,
pretend that to distract from their own failures.

>
>>> You are a nasty
>>> piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
>>> You support an industry which disrespects the lives
>>> of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
>>> and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
>>> kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
>>> disease and an early death in the human population.
>>> In your support for all of this death and destruction
>>> you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
>>> CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
>>> And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
>>> really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
>>> experience the same treatment that you support being
>>> brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?
>> Based on that self-serving rant,
>
> It is a calm and well thought through statement of fact.

It's well thought-through all right, it's also a self-serving, hateful,
bit of polemic. It's so utterly typical of hysterical vegan rhetoric.
We're all murderous monsters while you, the chosen few, sit cross-legged
on clouds playing peace train on your lutes.

>> 99% of the people on earth are brutal
>> monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?
>
> Most of the human population is vegetarian to near-vegetarian.

Then by that goalpost move so am I. OOOOMMMMM

> Meat is eaten to augment a plant-based diet.

Exactly what we've been saying all along.

> In the 'first world'
> the population had been led to believe that meat is an essential
> component of people's diet,

I'm not saying it's essential, neither does mainstream nutritional
science. No food you can name is essential.

> and you who have made a virtual
> career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.

"flesh industry" LOL! You think that's clever? I'm not advocating people
eat meat, or bananas, or rice, of anything else specifically that may
take a toll in animal suffering. I'm here to tell people that they
should lose the misguided, hand-wringing guilt like that author last
week, and that they should stop projecting it on others. Do what you
reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others.


> Doesn't it make you feel like a monster without conscience?

NO! You are NOT being successful in projecting guilt on me. You never
will. I am on to your nasty little game.

> 'in·hu·man

I am human, You base your self-image on the perception that the rest of
humanity are inhuman monsters, you are the epitome of an "anti-human".
It's a small-minded, sick way to live.

On Jul 22, 2:42 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
> >>> People who know me tell me they think that I am a
> >>> nice person. But what about you?
> >> People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.
>
> > People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>
> No they don't, people who know that I oppose their hateful bullshit,
> pretend that to distract from their own failures.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> You are a nasty
> >>> piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
> >>> You support an industry which disrespects the lives
> >>> of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
> >>> and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
> >>> kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
> >>> disease and an early death in the human population.
> >>> In your support for all of this death and destruction
> >>> you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
> >>> CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
> >>> And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
> >>> really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
> >>> experience the same treatment that you support being
> >>> brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?
> >> Based on that self-serving rant,
>
> > It is a calm and well thought through statement of fact.
>
> It's well thought-through all right, it's also a self-serving, hateful,
> bit of polemic. It's so utterly typical of hysterical vegan rhetoric.
> We're all murderous monsters while you, the chosen few, sit cross-legged
> on clouds playing peace train on your lutes.
>
> >> 99% of the people on earth are brutal
> >> monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?
>
> > Most of the human population is vegetarian to near-vegetarian.
>
> Then by that goalpost move so am I. OOOOMMMMM
>
> > Meat is eaten to augment a plant-based diet.
>
> Exactly what we've been saying all along.
>
> > In the 'first world'
> > the population had been led to believe that meat is an essential
> > component of people's diet,
>
> I'm not saying it's essential, neither does mainstream nutritional
> science. No food you can name is essential.
>
> > and you who have made a virtual
>
> > career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.
>
> "flesh industry" LOL! You think that's clever? I'm not advocating people
> eat meat, or bananas, or rice, of anything else specifically that may
> take a toll in animal suffering. I'm here to tell people that they
> should lose the misguided, hand-wringing guilt like that author last
> week, and that they should stop projecting it on others. Do what you
> reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
> lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others.
>
> > Doesn't it make you feel like a monster without conscience?
>
> NO! You are NOT being successful in projecting guilt on me. You never
> will. I am on to your nasty little game.



I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
"psychopath".




>
> > 'in·hu·man
>
> I am human, You base your self-image on the perception that the rest of
> humanity are inhuman monsters, you are the epitome of an "anti-human".
> It's a small-minded, sick way to live.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:dwtoi.134477$xq1.89095@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.
>> Animal social behaviours are not indicative of a capacity for moral
>> agency, not even Regan makes that claim.
>
> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
> Ethics and Society

Bekoff doesn't claim that animals are "moral agents", he concludes that
from an admittedly anthropomorphic standpoint their behaviours seem to
display a moral component. That's one plausible way of looking at it, if
one is careful about what one is claiming, which he is. He concludes
also that humans should treat animals with more respect. I also agree
with that. I don't see him calling people inhuman monsters because the
food chain causes animal deaths.

ricky's babysitter wrote:
> I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
> "psychopath".

The description for someone who deals with their guilt by projecting it
onto the rest of humanity is "vegan".

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:42:37 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>pearl wrote:
[..]
>> People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>
>No they don't

Yes, they do, liar Ditch. You're a proven liar who had to
invent a family of kids to use in personal anecdotes to help
support your so-called arguments here on these animal-
related groups and in alt.abortion. You're completely
screwed, and it's all your own fault.

Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:42:37 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
> [..]
>>> People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>> No they don't
>
> Yes, they do

No, they don't, not at all.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:03:19 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:42:37 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>> pearl wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>>>
>>> No they don't
>>
>> Yes, they do, liar Ditch. You're a proven liar who had to
>> invent a family of kids to use in personal anecdotes to help
>> support your so-called arguments here on these animal-
>> related groups and in alt.abortion. You're completely
>> screwed, and it's all your own fault.
>
>No, they don't, not at all.

They do.

Derek wrote:

> They do.

Nope

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:1jPoi.138280$1i1.33520@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
> >>> People who know me tell me they think that I am a
> >>> nice person. But what about you?
> >> People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.
> >
> > People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>
> No they don't, people who know that I oppose their hateful bullshit,
> pretend that to distract from their own failures.

Yes, we do. You invented two children to add credibility
and weight to your hateful BS, for crying out loud, loser.

> >>> You are a nasty
> >>> piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
> >>> You support an industry which disrespects the lives
> >>> of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
> >>> and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
> >>> kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
> >>> disease and an early death in the human population.
> >>> In your support for all of this death and destruction
> >>> you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
> >>> CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
> >>> And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
> >>> really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
> >>> experience the same treatment that you support being
> >>> brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?
>>>>
> >> Based on that self-serving rant,
> >
> > It is a calm and well thought through statement of fact.
>
> It's well thought-through all right, it's also a self-serving, hateful,
> bit of polemic. It's so utterly typical of hysterical vegan rhetoric.
> We're all murderous monsters while you, the chosen few, sit cross-legged
> on clouds playing peace train on your lutes.

This is your ranting, a self-serving, hateful, bit of polemic.
It's so utterly typical of your hysterical anti-vegan rhetoric.

> >> 99% of the people on earth are brutal
> >> monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?
> >
> > Most of the human population is vegetarian to near-vegetarian.
>
> Then by that goalpost move so am I. OOOOMMMMM

No goalpost move. Are you saying that you are near-vegetarian?

> > Meat is eaten to augment a plant-based diet.
>
> Exactly what we've been saying all along.

You are not living a subsistance lifestyle. You could be vegetarian.

> > In the 'first world'
> > the population had been led to believe that meat is an essential
> > component of people's diet,
>
> I'm not saying it's essential, neither does mainstream nutritional
> science. No food you can name is essential.

Here's one example. To a vegetarian, by you, on April 25 2007..

"To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you
can imagine, now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet
is no longer vegetarian, but by any objective measure it is better,
richer in high quality protein and fatty acids."

Or what about the gleaming globs of dribble like:

"Failure to thrive is rampant in the vegan community"

> > and you who have made a virtual
> > career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.
>
> "flesh industry" LOL! You think that's clever?

I know that it is FACTUAL. Do you think that it is funny,
or is it just embarrassing to you when people don't adhere to
your preferred dumbed-down wool-over-eyes terminology?

> I'm not advocating people
> eat meat, or bananas, or rice, of anything else specifically that may
> take a toll in animal suffering.

You advocate eating animal flesh at every opportunity, liar.

> I'm here to tell people that they
> should lose the misguided, hand-wringing guilt like that author last
> week, and that they should stop projecting it on others. Do what you
> reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
> lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others.

Wait a minute.. I need to get my hanky... boohoohoo, poor, poor
dutch.. such A SAINT.. the abuse he has to put put up with on his
self-sacrificing crusade to alleviate people's misguided, hand-wringing
guilt and their projection of that onto him, --- especially onto HIM.
And all he really wants is for people to, in His words: "Do what you
reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others." That is all!

Leather gloves vs. synthetic gloves
.... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy
targets, a bunch of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big
targets on your faces.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am by Dutch -
311 messages - 21 authors

'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.'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

> > Doesn't it make you feel like a monster without conscience?
>
> NO! You are NOT being successful in projecting guilt on me. You never
> will. I am on to your nasty little game.

As ricky's babysitter said:

I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
"psychopath".

> > 'in·hu·man
>
> I am human, You base your self-image on the perception that the rest of
> humanity are inhuman monsters, you are the epitome of an "anti-human".
> It's a small-minded, sick way to live.

You are an abnormal 'human'. Your type constitute ~4%
of the population. Normal people have been misled, imo.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:j%Poi.138374$NV3.28300@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:dwtoi.134477$xq1.89095@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>>>>> 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.
>>>
> >>> Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.
> >> Animal social behaviours are not indicative of a capacity for moral
> >> agency, not even Regan makes that claim.
> >
> > 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
> > Ethics and Society
>
> Bekoff doesn't claim that animals are "moral agents", he concludes that
> from an admittedly anthropomorphic standpoint their behaviours seem to
> display a moral component. That's one plausible way of looking at it, if
> one is careful about what one is claiming, which he is. He concludes
> also that humans should treat animals with more respect. I also agree
> with that. I don't see him calling people inhuman monsters because the
> food chain causes animal deaths.

So you've snipped the whole thing just to give us your twisted
false version of it rather than address what is actually written.

'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) and that they display moral
sensibility. What we observe when animals interact with one another
tells us a lot about what's happening inside their heads and hearts.
Animals' lives are very public, not hidden, private, or secret, and
the privacy of mind argument that we can never know what
animals are thinking or feeling is over-used and goes against solid
arguments based on evolutionary continuity and ethological and
neurobiological data.

In my presentation I will stress the importance of interdisciplinary
research and collaboration for coming to terms with various
aspects of animal emotions and morality. I will also discuss
anthropomorphism and why it is a very useful and inevitable way
to describe and explain animal behavior. To make my case about
animal morality I will focus on the details of social play behavior -
the many ways in which animals play fairly and honestly signal
their intentions - and also discuss research on inequity aversion
in animals. When animals play they carefully signal their intentions
to cooperate and to play, they trust that playmates will obey the
rules of fair play, and they forgive and apologize to one another
so that play can continue as play and not escalate to aggression.
Individuals fine-tune their interactions "on the run" by paying
attention to what is happening from moment to moment.

I will also argue that cognitive ethology is the unifying science
for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral
lives of animals because it's essential to know what animals do,
think, and feel as they go about their daily routines in the company
of their friends and when they are alone. Research on mirror
neurons is also important to factor into discussions of fair play
and moral behavior. It is essential to learn why both the similarities
and differences between humans and other animals have evolved.
The more we come to understand other animals the more we will
appreciate them as the amazing beings they are and the more we
will come to understand ourselves. If humans are moral beings
then so are other animals. We are not alone in the moral arena.

Finally, I will argue not only that individual animals matter, but so
does what they feel, and what they feel is very much related to
how they behave. Surely, a whimpering dog, a playing wolf having
fun on the run and doing "what's right", and a grieving chimpanzee
or elephant feel something. They are not unfeeling objects. And
what animals feel matters very much as they try to negotiate their
lives in a human-dominated and often abusive world in which we
attempt to manage their lives for our and not their benefit. I am
incredulous that some skeptics actually question whether animals
feel anything (and even if they think).

We owe it to all individual animals to make every attempt to come
to a greater understanding and appreciation for who they are -
emotional, empathic, and often moral beings - in their own worlds.
And, when we're not sure about what they're feeling, we should
leave them alone. Quite often good welfare isn't good enough -
offering animals food, a bed, and health insurance just isn't enough.
They deserve more and we can always do better. This sort of respect
will go a long way toward ending, once and for all, the unnecessarily
cruel treatment to which far too many non-consenting individuals
are subjected each and every second of each and every day.

Some references:

Bekoff, M. 1994. Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness,
and morality in animals. Biology & Philosophy 19: 489-520.

Allen, C., and M. Bekoff. 2005. Animal play and the evolution of
social morality: An ethological approach. Topoi 24, 125-135.

Bekoff, M. 2006. Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive
ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective,
emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals. Zygon (Journal of
Religion and Science) 41, 71-104.

Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading
Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and why
They Matter . New World Library, Novato, California .
_______

Marc Bekoff is Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado ,
Boulder , and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his
scientific research including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a
prolific writer with more than 200 articles as well two encyclopedias
to his credit. The author or editor of numerous books, including the
Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Ten Trusts:
What We Must Do to Care for the Animals We Love (with Jane
Goodall), and The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, his most
recent books include The Smile of a Dolphin, Minding Animals,
Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating
Nature, The Emotional Lives of Animals, and Animals Matter. In
2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community
Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior
citizens, and prisoners.
Marc Bekoff's website: http://literati.net/Bekoff.

More (EETA): www.ethologicalethics.org

Books:
New: The Emotional Lives of Animals, [..]

Animals Matter

Centre for Bioethics at Karolinska Institutet & Uppsala University
With support from:

[..]

http://www.bioethics.uu.se/symposium...ts/bekoff.html

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>> 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.
>>> 'The serial bully:
>> The stupid slut...
>
> 'The serial bully:

The ****witted skanky slut...


Understand this, slut: I can snip and retype faster
than you can slavishly copy-and-paste. You lose.


>>>>>>>>>> Nothing in that about the meat packing industry, liar.
>>>>>>> I do not lie.
>>>>>> You do - all the time.
>>>>> 'Bullies
>>>> You stupid ****.
>>> 'Bullies project
>> The stupid lying slut...
>
> 'Bullies project

Sluts infect...


>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> No.
>> Yes. One of your sources, apparently credible was
>> about workplace injuries and deaths in general. It did
>> not mention packing houses. The other was a sloppy bit
>> of extremest bullshit.
>>
>>> <restore>
>> [resnip bullshit]
>>
>> We don't address bullshit.
>
> Rudy desperately trying to ignore the death, injury

Rudy calmly snipping out the bullshit and saying we
won't address it.

Move along, lesley. You're trudging along a dead-end
path, and you look tired.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:1jPoi.138280$1i1.33520@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%DWni.132541$NV3.50281@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Not in the least, Pearl and Derek are both nasty pieces of work.
>>>>> People who know me tell me they think that I am a
>>>>> nice person. But what about you?
>>>> People who know me know me as a kind, caring, generous, forgiving person.
>>> People who know you here, know that you are a liar.
>> No they don't, people who know that I oppose their hateful bullshit,
>> pretend that to distract from their own failures.
>
> Yes, we do. You invented two children to add credibility
> and weight to your hateful BS, for crying out loud, loser.

You're hardly an objective observer, twit.
>
>>>>> You are a nasty
>>>>> piece of work of course - you're always projecting.
>>>>> You support an industry which disrespects the lives
>>>>> of sentient beings, intentionally inflicts extreme pain
>>>>> and suffering upon billions of domesticated animals,
>>>>> kills wildlife, destroys the environment, and causes
>>>>> disease and an early death in the human population.
>>>>> In your support for all of this death and destruction
>>>>> you hatefully attack and denigrate those, like me, who
>>>>> CARE and hope for a more peaceful and kind world.
>>>>> And yet *I'm* the nasty piece of work. Would it be
>>>>> really nasty of me to say that you should be made to
>>>>> experience the same treatment that you support being
>>>>> brutally forced upon defenceless non-human animals?
>>>>>
>>>> Based on that self-serving rant,
>>> It is a calm and well thought through statement of fact.
>> It's well thought-through all right, it's also a self-serving, hateful,
>> bit of polemic. It's so utterly typical of hysterical vegan rhetoric.
>> We're all murderous monsters while you, the chosen few, sit cross-legged
>> on clouds playing peace train on your lutes.
>
> This is your ranting, a self-serving, hateful, bit of polemic.
> It's so utterly typical of your hysterical anti-vegan rhetoric.

Polly want a cracker?

>
>>>> 99% of the people on earth are brutal
>>>> monsters. Does that make you feel like a hero?
>>> Most of the human population is vegetarian to near-vegetarian.
>> Then by that goalpost move so am I. OOOOMMMMM
>
> No goalpost move.

Yes goalpost move, 99% of the world's population fall into the category
you love to create, "the monsters who torture defenseless animals"

> Are you saying that you are near-vegetarian?

Nearer than the average bear.

>>> Meat is eaten to augment a plant-based diet.
>> Exactly what we've been saying all along.
>
> You are not living a subsistance lifestyle.

Another goalpost move.

> You could be vegetarian.

I could do a lot of things, so could you, so could most people, so what?

>
>>> In the 'first world'
>>> the population had been led to believe that meat is an essential
>>> component of people's diet,
>> I'm not saying it's essential, neither does mainstream nutritional
>> science. No food you can name is essential.
>
> Here's one example. To a vegetarian, by you, on April 25 2007..
>
> "To illustrate my point, forumulate the best vegetarian diet you
> can imagine, now add a small amount of wild salmon. The diet
> is no longer vegetarian, but by any objective measure it is better,
> richer in high quality protein and fatty acids."

What are you talking about? That is a factual statement, it doesn't
claim that meat is "essential", it says that it is "beneficial" in the
right context. Despite some study abstract you dug up that says that
it's poison in any amount, most nutritional science does not say so.

> Or what about the gleaming globs of dribble like:
>
> "Failure to thrive is rampant in the vegan community"
>
>> > and you who have made a virtual
>>> career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.
>> "flesh industry" LOL! You think that's clever?
>
> I know that it is FACTUAL. Do you think that it is funny,
> or is it just embarrassing to you when people don't adhere to
> your preferred dumbed-down wool-over-eyes terminology?
>
>> I'm not advocating people
>> eat meat, or bananas, or rice, of anything else specifically that may
>> take a toll in animal suffering.
>
> You advocate eating animal flesh at every opportunity, liar.
>
>> I'm here to tell people that they
>> should lose the misguided, hand-wringing guilt like that author last
>> week, and that they should stop projecting it on others. Do what you
>> reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
>> lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others.
>
> Wait a minute.. I need to get my hanky... boohoohoo, poor, poor
> dutch..

I'm not crying about it, I'm fighting back.

> such A SAINT..

Not at all, the Saints have a poor defense.


> the abuse he has to put put up with

Yea, but that's OK, I can dish it out as well.

> on his
> self-sacrificing crusade

No sacrifice at all.

> to alleviate people's misguided, hand-wringing
> guilt and their projection of that onto him, --- especially onto HIM.

I do what I can


> And all he really wants is for people to, in His words: "Do what you
> reasonably can and what you feel is best regarding your diet and
> lifestyle and respect the reasonable choices of others." That is all!

Exactly! Why can't you do that?


> Leather gloves vs. synthetic gloves
> ... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy
> targets, a bunch of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big
> targets on your faces.
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am by Dutch -
> 311 messages - 21 authors

Heh, you're proving me right right now.

>
> 'Bullies project <snip>

Wah wah wah! Poo widdle pearl, getting bullied in the schoolyard. Maybe
you should stay inside at recess.

>
>>> Doesn't it make you feel like a monster without conscience?
>> NO! You are NOT being successful in projecting guilt on me. You never
>> will. I am on to your nasty little game.
>
> As ricky's babysitter said:
>
> I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
> "psychopath".

The description of someone who deals with their guilt by attacking
others is "vegan".

>>> 'in·hu·man
>> I am human, You base your self-image on the perception that the rest of
>> humanity are inhuman monsters, you are the epitome of an "anti-human".
>> It's a small-minded, sick way to live.
>
> You are an abnormal 'human'. Your type constitute ~4%
> of the population.

My type? I'm probably a more conscientious consumer than most vegans. I
happen to accept that my diet causes animal deaths.

> Normal people have been misled, imo.

You're not qualified to say, you believe stupid irrational things.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:j%Poi.138374$NV3.28300@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:dwtoi.134477$xq1.89095@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Yes, you did. Those "social behaviours" are moral behaviours.
>>>> Animal social behaviours are not indicative of a capacity for moral
>>>> agency, not even Regan makes that claim.
>>> 'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
>>> Ethics and Society
>> Bekoff doesn't claim that animals are "moral agents", he concludes that
>> from an admittedly anthropomorphic standpoint their behaviours seem to
>> display a moral component. That's one plausible way of looking at it, if
>> one is careful about what one is claiming, which he is. He concludes
>> also that humans should treat animals with more respect. I also agree
>> with that. I don't see him calling people inhuman monsters because the
>> food chain causes animal deaths.
>
> So you've snipped

The "whole thing" is in your message, there's no reason to repost it,
whack-job.

> the whole thing just to give us your twisted
> false version of it rather than address what is actually written.

I addressed what was written, you just didn't like my comments. No need
to paste it over and over and over, whack-job.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:1jPoi.138280$1i1.33520@pd7urf3no...

Missed a couple of points..

> "Failure to thrive is rampant in the vegan community"

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

Why "failure to thrive" on vegetarian
diets is rarely talked about

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When not everyone does well on the diet, the easy answers provided by
the vegetarian movement are no longer so simple.

If you find yourself facing one of the six problem scenarios mentioned
previously, you aren't alone--though you might not think so, given the
positive press vegetarian nutrition often receives today. In fact, where
health is concerned, most people do well, often quite well, on
vegetarian diets when they first switch. (Certainly they usually do
better, at least, if they had previously been following the "standard
American diet"--often referred to as "SAD" by people pursuing healthier
alternative diets.) And the positive press with respect to the long-term
impact on certain degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular disease
and so forth is well-deserved. Numerous studies have shown that diets
higher in fiber, fruits, and vegetables and lower in saturated fats
(such as vegetarianism, though it is not the only such diet, of course)
are considerably healthier than the SAD when looking at certain
degenerative diseases.
"Failure to thrive" is usually mild and unrecognized as such at first.
However, there is another side to the vegetarian story that rarely gets
talked about, which is the phenomenon known as "failure to thrive"
(FTT). Normally this term is used to describe infants who fail to do
well or to meet minimum standards for growth and development, due to
some shortfall in the standard of care received. However, the term can
also be applied to anyone not doing well health-wise when they might
otherwise be expected to.

Where vegetarianism is concerned, it means that despite following
prudent recommendations for the diet, some people simply do not
experience the best health, or, put differently perhaps, "well-being."
This can range anywhere from mild symptoms such as:


Lassitude or "being hungry all day" and "not feeling satisfied," as
described above; to

Poor sex drive or poor-quality sleep; to

Behavioral effects such as not being able to get one's mind off food
(not uncommon if one is not feeling physically satiated or otherwise
satisfied on the diet), or

The yo-yo syndrome of not being able to stay on the diet consistently
due to cravings; to

Emotional effects such as a vague, nonspecific loss of zest for life
(which is usually more apparent to other people than to the person
themselves); to

Actual deficiencies in some cases.

Prudent vegetarian diets are sufficient "on paper." Usually, since
well-planned vegetarian diets are sufficient on paper, overt
deficiencies are rare (other than of vitamin B-12 occasionally in pure
vegans not taking a supplement). However, there is much that is still
being discovered about nutrition, and--as is discussed elsewhere on the
site--given that vegetarian diets are not the kind of diet that the
human species evolved on, it may be there are dietary factors,
particularly micronutrients, that don't measure up on diets that
significantly deviate from our natural one. Or some elements in the diet
may not be extracted as efficiently from plant foods, whether in
general, or by certain individuals. (See Timeline of Dietary Shifts in
the Human Line of Evolution for a footnoted discussion of dietary
developments indicating the diet the human species is naturally adapted
to. Also see Key Nutrients vis-a-vis Omnivorous Adaptation and
Vegetarianism for a discussion of differences between plant and animal
foods in absorption efficiency of certain dietary nutrients.)
But even allowing for the somewhat "covert" or subliminal nature of the
above kinds of early or mild symptoms that might predispose people to
believe FTT is not really real in the first place, what are the other
reasons why FTT doesn't get talked about much? There are a few separate
ones:


The self-selection effect among long-term (successful) vegans screens
out awareness of failure to thrive. This first reason generally
underlies the other additional reasons FTT is seldom acknowledged or
discussed. Most people who try vegetarian diets usually do not stick
with them for a long period of time, and go on to something else. At any
point in time, therefore, the pool of currently practicing vegetarians
is composed mostly of long-term vegetarians. This sets up a
"self-selection" effect that filters awareness, whereby most of the
vegetarians you talk to are inevitably either the most motivated or the
most "successful" ones who do the best on the diet long-term.
Yet ironically, many more people are ex-vegetarian than currently
vegetarian. But since practicing vegetarians tend to be far more vocal,
those are the voices most people hear about vegetarianism from. Thus,
the ex-vegetarian population is something of a "silent majority" that
doesn't get heard from much compared to current vegetarians, because
most often, they simply go on to something else that becomes their focus
instead, and the subject is dropped before it has much of a chance to
make an impact on others.


The large number of "social dropouts" diverts attention and is a
scapegoat for the actual cases. Why do people "drop out"? Oftentimes, of
course, it is strictly for social reasons having to do with peer
pressure from family, friends, or workmates, or just the social
inconveniences of not being able to find good vegetarian meals outside
the home. Or people may simply like animal foods, and eventually find
they don't want, or have trouble trying, to give them up despite the
proposed benefits of doing so (not surprising given the evolutionary
heritage of Homo sapiens, with meat being a natural food that most of us
enjoy). And vegetarianism often is an enthusiasm of younger, more
idealistic people that doesn't last or doesn't "stick" as they get out
into the world, and start dealing with the everyday vicissitudes of life
that make idealism of any sort difficult.
However, the foregoing primarily tends to describe people who haven't
practiced vegetarianism for a very long time before dropping out--often
before there would be much likelihood of developing FTT anyway. And
since most people who embrace vegetarianism do at least passably well on
the diet at first, and FTT--if/when it occurs--may take anywhere from a
few months to a few years to several years (sometimes longer) to
develop, dropouts of this particular variety don't really tell us very
much about failure to thrive. I.e., despite the way in which "social
dropouts" are brought up as a refutation of FTT, they are a "red
herring" and mostly irrelevant to the question.


Moral ostracism marginalizes willingness of FTT dropouts to speak out.
But it would be erroneous to conclude that the FTT population will
automatically be insignificant just because there are a lot of "social
dropouts" or because there is no publicity about the phenomenon. In
addition to the "self-selection" effect discussed above about why FTT is
not heard about much, there is also a strong tendency toward moral
ostracism toward ex-vegetarians by current vegetarians. (Anyone who
doesn't believe this should listen in on a conversation among "ethical"
vegetarians about some failed ex-vegetarian sometime. So much for
"compassion" as one of the underlying values of vegetarianism, if it
doesn't apply to fellow human beings.) This quite commonly results in
either blackout of contrary information (within the vegetarian
community), or failure to take it seriously when it does surface.

Pat answers. But of course, not all cases of FTT completely escape
attention. Instead they may be rationalized. Usually this happens by
explaining away all examples of FTT as failures to "intelligently plan,"
or adhere to, the diet instead. While in some cases this might well be
true, most often what occurs is that the people making such comments
don't really know if it is or not, because rarely do people explaining
away FTT bother with finding out all the particulars of the cases that
come up. (For more on how morally based ostracism operates to screen out
awareness of FTT in the vegetarian community, see both Drawbacks to
Relying Exclusively on Clinical Studies of Diet [go about halfway down
the page] and Failure to Thrive: Your Health is More Important than
Dietary Dogma.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to thrive is real, but its extent unknown.

After adopting the diet, cases of FTT are small in the beginning, but
increase over the long-term. Now that the vegetarian and alternative
diet movement has had almost three decades to mature since it began
mushrooming in the U.S. with the contingent of baby-boomers who began
adopting it starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s, results contrary
to the standard healthy script of what is supposed to happen have had
time to surface and undergo more close re-examination. Based on
anecdotal reports, the number of people who experience FTT is small in
the beginning after the diet is adopted, but will increase over time.
Some begin not doing well within just a few months. For others it may be
a decade or longer before they realize their state of health is not what
it once was. Sometimes people find they have very slowly adjusted to a
lowered sense of well-being without realizing it until some years later.
It would be nice if one could put a percentage figure on the rate of FTT
among those who try vegetarian diets, but unfortunately this number is
unknown at present.

(Note: Vegan advocate Michael Klaper, M.D. has been attempting, since
about 1997/1998, to put together what appears to be the first-ever study
on failure to thrive in vegans, and also appears to be one of the very
few vegan advocates to acknowledge it publicly as a worthwhile issue. It
is a prospective study and not longitudinal, and thus will not be able
to determine rates of incidence; but it is a start, and those who are
interested in this topic may want to check out the web page for the
study at http://www.vegsource.com/klaper/study.htm.)
Most individuals with FTT make changes quietly, and go on to other
diets. Some of these individuals who have had extensive firsthand
experience from which they can speak have been forced to seriously
question their diets--or at the least, the claim that they will work for
everyone. And in some cases these individuals have even gone so far as
to re-introduce animal foods back into their diets (some including
carefully chosen portions of flesh) and are experiencing improved
health. Others who haven't seen fit to make that kind of change may
nevertheless have made compromises in the area of adding supplements or
other auxiliary items to their diets formerly eschewed. (You can read
stories of a few such individuals here on the website: see Dietary
Problems in the Real World.)

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(What Happens if Vegetarian Diets Are Not Best for Everyone?)


>
>> > and you who have made a virtual
>>> career out of supporting the flesh industry try to perpetuate it.
>> "flesh industry" LOL! You think that's clever?
>
> I know that it is FACTUAL.

It's obvious ARA emotive bullshit.

> Do you think that it is funny,

I have to laugh that you still think that manipulating emotions with
buzz-phrases is a valid way to make a point.

> or is it just embarrassing to you when people don't adhere to
> your preferred dumbed-down wool-over-eyes terminology?

"The Meat industry" is a descriptive enough term, even that is less than
informative and prejudicial because it fails to differentiate between
vastly different methods of production which exist.


>> I'm not advocating people
>> eat meat, or bananas, or rice, of anything else specifically that may
>> take a toll in animal suffering.
>
> You advocate eating animal flesh at every opportunity, liar.

Thank you for telling me what I advocate, that's very kind of you.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote:

> > Rudy desperately trying to ignore the death, injury
>
> Rudy calmly snipping out the bullshit and saying we
> won't address it.

"We"? Ok.. baby goo is notable by his absence here.
Right on form, the pair of you. This attitude is wholly
representative of the meat industry. ....

'Meatpacking's Human Toll

By Lance Compa and Jamie Fellner

August 3, 2005

Working conditions in U.S. meat and poultry plants should
trouble the conscience of every American who eats beef,
pork or chicken.

Dispatching the nonstop tide of animals and birds arriving on
plant "kill floors" and "live hang" areas has always been
hazardous and exhausting labor. Turning an 800-pound animal
(or even a five-pound fowl) into products for supermarkets or
fast-food restaurants is, by its nature, demanding physical labor
in bloody, greasy surroundings.

But meatpacking and poultry workers face more than hard work
in tough settings. They perform the most dangerous factory jobs
in the country. U.S. meat and poultry employers put workers at
predictable risk of serious physical injury even though the means
to avoid such injury are known and feasible. In doing so, they
violate the right of workers to a safe place of employment.

"Faster, faster, get that product out the door!" is the industry
byword. The results are cuts, amputations, skin disease,
permanent arm and shoulder damage, and even death from the
force of repeated hard cutting motions. When injured employees
seek workers' compensation claims for their injuries, they are
told, "You got hurt at home, not on the job."

The workers who face these hazards are, increasingly, immigrants,
most from Mexico and Central America but also from many
other parts of the world. Companies exploit their vulnerabilities:
limited English skills; uncertainty about their rights; alarm about
their immigration status if they are undocumented workers.

The U.S. government does little to protect meatpacking workers.
As the Government Accountability Office has pointed out, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has "no specific
standard that allows OSHA to cite employers for hazards"
relating to line speed and repetitive stress injuries. Indeed,
job safety enforcement officials do not even have data "to
assess the appropriate speed at which the lines should operate."
This information does not exist because companies refuse to
let government regulators or independent researchers measure
line speed, examine workers' knife-cutting motions or study
musculoskeletal injuries from repeated hard cutting.

The American Meat Institute says that injury rates have declined
in recent years. That does not answer the question of whether
injury rates are still far too high. The GAO has noted doubts
about "the validity of the data" on which the reported decline
in injuries is based. OSHA does not even have a systematic
program for auditing injury reports in meat and poultry plants.

One problem with published injury reports is that they don't
include night-shift workers who perform the most dangerous
jobs in the industry, using caustic chemicals and high-powered
hoses to remove blood, bone and gristle from moving
machinery parts. Their injuries are counted with those of hotel
room cleaners and building janitors.

Moreover, company underreporting of injuries is rampant -- to
an unknown extent, the claimed decline in the injury rate reflects
bad numbers, not a real falloff in injuries. Workers are under
constant pressure from managers and supervisors not to report
injuries (many managers get pay bonuses for low reporting rates),
and fear losing their jobs if they report injuries. Immigrant workers
especially are vulnerable to pressure not to file such reports.

When workers seek to organize to protect themselves,
meatpacking companies use tactics of fear, intimidation and
interference to block union organizing efforts. For example,
Smithfield Foods fired union supporters and threatened to close
its massive hog slaughtering plant in Tar Heel, N.C., when
workers there tried to form a union. Company police have
targeted union supporters for harassment, arrests and beatings.
Some of these violations of workers' organizing rights go back
eight years, but National Labor Relations Board remedies have
not been enforced.

The meatpacking industry has shown little inclination to respect
its workers' rights on its own. Congress and the Bush
administration should take decisive steps to protect the lives
and well-being of these men and women. But they are unlikely
to act until consumers demand meat that is not tainted by
workers' blood, sweat and fear.

Lance Compa is the author of a Human Rights Watch report
on meat and poultry workers. Jamie Fellner is the U.S.
program director for Human Rights Watch.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/labor_humantoll.htm

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures
from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men
who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
~ St Francis of Assisi .

> Move along, lesley. You're trudging along a dead-end
> path, and you look tired.

I'm doing great. The dead-end paths, ball, are all yours.