"Dutch" > wrote in message news:sY7pi.189$fJ5.183@pd7urf1no...
> 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're left whining that "nobody cares" if you lie. lol.

> >>>>> 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?

As I've said countless times - you project. See yourself.

> >>>> 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"

No, they don't. There is a vast difference between need and want.

I didn't create psychopaths, that is, you who support torture.

> > Are you saying that you are near-vegetarian?
>
> Nearer than the average bear.

And what's that supposed to mean?

> >>> 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.

Explain how. You're just saying any old thing now.

> > You could be vegetarian.
>
> I could do a lot of things, so could you, so could most people, so what?

You have a choice - unlike the near-vegetarians living
a subsistence lifestyle who eat meat out of necessity.

> >>> 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.

If a food is "beneficial" then it's *essential* for optimum health.

'op·ti·mum
n., The point at which the condition, degree, or amount of
something is the most favorable.
...
adj.
Most favorable or advantageous; best.
...'
http://www.answers.com/optimum&r=67

> Despite some study abstract you dug up that says that
> it's poison in any amount, most nutritional science does not say so.

Are you referring to the China Study as "some study"? It's
the most comprehensive nutritional study that's been done.
And you were given this data from another large study:

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

> > 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.

Stuck in a corner, you're playing the victim.

> > such A SAINT..
>
> Not at all, the Saints have a poor defense.

You have no defense.

> > the abuse he has to put put up with
>
> Yea, but that's OK, I can dish it out as well.

Oh, you dish it out alright. That's all you ever do.

> > on his
> > self-sacrificing crusade
>
> No sacrifice at all.

I'm sure.

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

To make people feel guilty.

> > 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?

You're at the very depths of hypocrisy.

> > 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.

You're proving that you're a nasty, smug, self-righteous cretin.

> > 'Bullies project <snip>
>
> Wah wah wah! Poo widdle pearl, getting bullied in the schoolyard. Maybe
> you should stay inside at recess.

Maybe you should go spend some 'quality' time in a pen.

> >>> 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".

It's "Dutch". Vegans are dealing with the issues.

> >>> '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.

Your type. A psychopath who pays lip-service to so-called
'animal welfare', and then buys whatever meat is convenient.

> > Normal people have been misled, imo.
>
> You're not qualified to say, you believe stupid irrational things.

You're not qualified to say, and you have no credibility.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:h18pi.219$rX4.179@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:j%Poi.138374$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.

You're a despicable liar. And despite reading that weeks ago,
you've persisted with false claims ever since. So what's new..

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lr8pi.245$rX4.120@pd7urf2no...
> 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

Not a credible source.

<snip>

> (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

Get that?

> 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.)

<...>

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet,
the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of
known and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity,
a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained
without animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

> >> > 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.

"To shut your mind, heart, imagination to the sufferings of
others is to begin slowly but inexorably to die. It is to cease
by inches from being human, to become in the end capable
of nothing, generous or unselfish - or sometimes capable
of anything, however terrible."
~ John Austin Baker, Bishop of Salisbury (1928- )

> > 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.

"Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to
fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have
one living creature fed by the death of another! In the midst of
such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing
forsooth satisfies you but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting
sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry
cravings of your wicked, gluttonous stomachs except by
destroying some other life." ~ Pythagoras

> > 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.

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal
of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings,
we are still savages." ~ Thomas Edison, inventor

> >> 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.

Your posting history here does indeed speak for itself.

pearl wrote:
> "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"?

Right, stupid who we won't address the bullshit.
Move along, slut.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:sY7pi.189$fJ5.183@pd7urf1no...
>> 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're left whining that "nobody cares" if you lie. lol.

Nobody cares about those insignificant examples, if at all. Derek the
hyprocrite's regular sock-puppet forays into the group are far more
dishonest. Your plethora of beliefs in nonsense is also far more
significant.

>
>>>>>>> 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?
>
> As I've said countless times - you project. See yourself.

No I don't project, YOU project, you do it numerous times in this very
post. Your accusations of projection are themselves a projection.


>>>>>> 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"
>
> No, they don't. There is a vast difference between need and want.

No there isn't, a need is simply a intensely felt want.
>
> I didn't create psychopaths, that is, you who support torture.

What a terrible thing to accuse someone of. You are an awful person.

>> > Are you saying that you are near-vegetarian?
>>
>> Nearer than the average bear.
>
> And what's that supposed to mean?

What does it matter? The question made no sense anyway.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Explain how. You're just saying any old thing now.

Projection. You just *introduced* "subsistence lifestyle" right out of
left field to muddy the waters. None of us follows a "subsistence
lifestyle", so what?

>> > You could be vegetarian.
>>
>> I could do a lot of things, so could you, so could most people, so what?
>
> You have a choice - unlike the near-vegetarians living
> a subsistence lifestyle who eat meat out of necessity.

You're suffering under the vegan delusion that since I am able to avoid
eating meat that I am morally obliged to do so. That's YOUR hangup, not
mine. There are many harmful aspects of our lifestyles that we *could*
avoid but don't, including aspects of our diets that do NOT include
meat. I feel no more obliged to commit to stopping them than I do
stopping meat consumption.

>
>>>>> 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.
>
> If a food is "beneficial" then it's *essential* for optimum health.

Nonsense, beneficial and essential are not synonymous.

> 'op·ti·mum
> n., The point at which the condition, degree, or amount of
> something is the most favorable.
> ..
> adj.
> Most favorable or advantageous; best.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/optimum&r=67

Even if you could define an "optimum" diet that applied to everyone,
which is absurd on several levels, nobody eats strictly for health
anyway. That is just one motivation.


>> Despite some study abstract you dug up that says that
>> it's poison in any amount, most nutritional science does not say so.
>
> Are you referring to the China Study as "some study"? It's
> the most comprehensive nutritional study that's been done.
> And you were given this data from another large study:
>
> 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
> ..
> Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
> subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
> and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
> of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
> after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
> intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
> 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
> and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
> and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
> time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
> = 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
> 95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
> ..'
> http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

More authorities on nutrition by 100-1 say that meat can form part of a
healthy diet than say it cannot.

>>> 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.
>
> Stuck in a corner, you're playing the victim.

Projecting again. That "Serial Bully" whine is the biggest victim game
I've ever seen.

>
>>> such A SAINT..
>> Not at all, the Saints have a poor defense.
>
> You have no defense.

I'm not the only claiming to be a Saint.

>>> the abuse he has to put put up with
>> Yea, but that's OK, I can dish it out as well.
>
> Oh, you dish it out alright. That's all you ever do.

Funny, it feels like I am continually on the defensive.

>>> on his
>>> self-sacrificing crusade
>> No sacrifice at all.
>
> I'm sure.

You're sure of a lot things that you shouldn't be.

>>> to alleviate people's misguided, hand-wringing
>>> guilt and their projection of that onto him, --- especially onto HIM.
>> I do what I can
>
> To make people feel guilty.

NO, to tell people that they do NOT need to feel guilty, that the
guilt-trips being pushed by vegans are just the noise made my insecure
people looking for something to make themselves feel important.


>>> 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?
>
> You're at the very depths of hypocrisy.

Explain how.

>>> 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.
>
> You're proving that you're a nasty, smug, self-righteous cretin.

Thanks for proving my point again.

>
>>> 'Bullies project <snip>
>> Wah wah wah! Poo widdle pearl, getting bullied in the schoolyard. Maybe
>> you should stay inside at recess.
>
> Maybe you should go spend some 'quality' time in a pen.
>
>>>>> 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".
>
> It's "Dutch". Vegans are dealing with the issues.

Vegans deal with their need to feel self-important by attacking and
demonizing good people, the same people who they depend on to support
them when they need help.

>>>>> '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.
>
> Your type. A psychopath who pays lip-service to so-called
> 'animal welfare', and then buys whatever meat is convenient.

That's a lie, as alternative foods, not only meat, has become more
available I spend more and more of my budget making those choices.

>
>>> Normal people have been misled, imo.
>> You're not qualified to say, you believe stupid irrational things.
>
> You're not qualified to say, and you have no credibility.

Your projection is so severe you just repeat what I say.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:h18pi.219$rX4.179@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:j%Poi.138374$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.
>
> You're a despicable liar. And despite reading that weeks ago,
> you've persisted with false claims ever since. So what's new..

What a terrible way to talk. You're a horrible person.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lr8pi.245$rX4.120@pd7urf2no...
>> 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
>
> Not a credible source.

Yes a credible source, you have no valid reason to totally dismiss it.
One of the editors is a vegetarian.

> <snip>
>
>> (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
>
> Get that?

Yes, first ever study, after decades of denial. Amazing? not really.

>> 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.)
>
> <...>


>>>> 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.
>
> Your posting history here does indeed speak for itself.

I speak for myself, I do not advocate eating meat at every opportunity,
that's a bizarre statement even coming from you. If you want to wank, go
do it on your own time.

On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>> No. ****wit.
> >>> You must realize
> >> No. ****wit.
>
> > Well, if
>
> ****wit.

There, there, Ball. There's no need to be a sore loser. You got the
idea that you could critique my paper by consulting an online
dictionary, and you made even more of an astounding clown of yourself
than usual, which was quite impressive. Accept it, and deal with it.
Learn to see the humour in it. It's good to be able to laugh at
yourself. And try to get something positive about the experience; try
not to be quite so mindless in trying to find excuses for putting
people down. That way you may make less of a clown of yourself in the
future.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
>>>>>>> You've got to admit
>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>> You must realize
>>>> No. ****wit.
>>> Well, if
>> ****wit.
>
> There, there,

****wit.

On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>> You must realize
> >>>> No. ****wit.
> >>> Well, if
> >> ****wit.
>
> > There, there,
>
> ****wit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gee, Ball, that's some comeback.

On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.
>

Jolly good. Well, that's a very interesting view you have there, Ball.
Thanks for sharing it with us. What do you imagine people think about
your photo, by the way? Do you think they see it as the photo of a
"real man", an alpha male?

You know, Ball, you've called me "immature" before. I'll try and
emulate your level of maturity. Apparently mature people make
speculations about other people's sex lives based on their photos. The
last woman I had sex with really enjoyed herself, you know. She gave
me high compliments indeed for my technique. Somehow I don't imagine
that's a very common experience for you. I find it hard, looking at
your photo, to see you as a man who can satisfy a woman.

There we go. How did I do at that game, Ball? Am I becoming as mature
as you now?


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

Classic, Ball. Just classic.

Okay, well you have a good time masturbating about all this rage you
think you're inducing in me, and be sure to post lots of public
statements about it for me to split my sides over.

And keep mindlessly replying "****wit" in the discussion that started
off with your attempt to criticize my paper, too. That's really
fantastic.

On Jul 21, 11:32 am, Dutch > wrote:
> 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".
>

I've done a perfectly good job of clarifying your position and
answering your criticisms of it. My position is at least as well-
defended as anyone else's here. I may bother to have another go at
clarifying it in more detail, if I feel like it and if I get around to
it, just for the sake of the exercise. I don't need to prove myself to
you or anyone here. Regardless of what you may think, I have presented
a respectable position and you have not presented any respectable
criticisms of it.

> > 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.
>

It is symmetrical. Everyone thinks there are some limits on what we
may do to animals to get benefits for ourselves. You draw the line
somewhere, we all do. That means you attack some people for hurting
animals whilst doing it yourself. You don't like the place where I
draw the line, but you haven't come up with any credible criticisms of
it.

> > 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.

Well, what of it? Do you suppose I care? I don't think you have any
competence to judge the matter.

On Jul 21, 10:19 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:11820536 ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:118203 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,

False. I've presented such a case plenty of times. So have many
others. You've said nothing by way of respectable reply.

> and the ****wits - YOU - are
> living their lives in direct violation of the supposed
> beliefs.

I'm not. Plenty of others are not. Some are, but that's irrelevant.
That's a tu quoque. Whether or not someone is living up a position has
no bearing on the merits of the position.

> As the living of the lives is the truth and
> the so-called beliefs are clearly seen as a lie, the
> beliefs must go.
>

That's rubbish. Even if you could demonstrate that I wasn't living up
to my beliefs, which you haven't, that would have absolutely no
bearing on the merits of the beliefs.

> You fatuous punk.

You pathetic clown.

On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.
>

I have been.

> 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.

In my view, you have not given any satisfactory criticisms of what I
have said. Your inability to grasp this is not my problem.

On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:52 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "irate vegan" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> >> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:18:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>"irate vegan" > wrote
>
> >> >>> Well, I don't have much time, but here's my argument
> >> >>> against speciesism. To support his position the speciesist
> >> >>> must make his case on two moral grounds and on one
> >> >>> logical basis.
>
> >> >>You shifted the burden, make the argument.
>
> >> > The burden is always on those who promote and practice
> >> > discrimination. If it's based on sex, the sexist must make
> >> > his case. If it's based on race, the racist must make his
> >> > case, and so on.
>
> >> That's incorrect, discrimination per se, as opposed to *unfair*
> >> discrimination, is the essential ability that organisms must exercise in
> >> order to survive, it's not wrong by default, not by a long shot. An
> >> organism
> >> that cannot or does not discriminate, i.e. between food and poison,
> >> bargain
> >> or ripoff, friend or foe, etc.. does not last long. So discrimination,
> >> per
> >> se, is actually the definitive *good thing*. The "discrimination"
> >> pjorative
> >> term you are referencing is actually a short-form for "unfair
> >> discrimination". So in effect you are saying that discrimination of the
> >> basis of species is unfair, wrong, unjust, misguided, or what-have-you,
> >> in
> >> the same way that certain types of discrimination on the basis of sex,
> >> race
> >> or age, physical infirmity are. So your assertion that this kind of
> >> discrimination is wrong needs to be supported. I'm not saying that the
> >> correctness of speciesism should not or cannot be argued, but that you
> >> also
> >> have a burden.
>
> > That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
> > We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
> > different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
> > relevant difference between them.
>
> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
> intelligence and sentience.

But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
many times do I have to repeat *that*?

> The less intelligent and sentient a species is
> the more we believe that it is acceptable to cause them harm. This
> adequately explains my view of animals (and plants for that matter) and
> yours, by your view I mean the one you live by, not the one you claim to
> believe.
>
> The argument for marginal cases fails to account for our belief and hope
> that some of these qualities exist in all people.
>
> > That's the formal principle of
> > justice. If the formal principle of justice isn't assumed, then
> > there's no way to make the case against discrimination on the basis of
> > race or sex either.
>
> There is no objective difference in intelligence or sentience between the
> sexes or the races.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 20, 2:13 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.

Derek's a bit irritating at times, he's nowhere near as bad as you
people. I've never seen Pearl being nasty. You people are hardly in a
position to make any sort of complaint.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:32 am, Dutch > wrote:

> It is symmetrical. Everyone thinks there are some limits on what we
> may do to animals to get benefits for ourselves. You draw the line
> somewhere, we all do. That means you attack some people for hurting
> animals whilst doing it yourself. You don't like the place where I
> draw the line, but you haven't come up with any credible criticisms of
> it.

I assume you draw the line in a reasonable place based on my knowledge
of you and my fundamental respect for your liberty. I do NOT criticize
where you draw the line, that is a false impression. What I don't care
for is your belief that where I draw the line is wrong. Based on the
world we live in and the options available to us the place I draw the
line is above reproach. I could do more, I could do less, as could you,
but we are both living within the range of acceptability. Michael Vick
is another story.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> In my view, you have not given any satisfactory criticisms of what I
> have said. Your inability to grasp this is not my problem.

Your view is wrong. I have stated precisely what I believe to be
acceptable with regards to harming animals and what is not and given
arguments to support those opinions. You have offered vague references
to theories in "the literature". Even when you sort-of state an opinion,
it's usually worded indirectly like, "Many people would say that X is
true", you never just say what you believe. I am trying to discuss the
issues, you are trying to appear to be highly knowledgeable without
actually committing yourself to anything. Whatever you call that
approach, that *is* your problem.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
>>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
>>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
>>> relevant difference between them.
>> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
>> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
>> intelligence and sentience.
>
> But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
> many times do I have to repeat *that*?

You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
"THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "


The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
"capacity", but that objection is weak and has not been put forth. In
fact capacity is a transparent concept, an acorn possesses the capacity
to become an oak tree, a fertile egg possesses the capacity to be a
chicken, a baby human and a person in a coma possess the capacity to
become a moral agent.

[..]

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:13 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Derek's a bit irritating at times, he's nowhere near as bad as you
> people.

He's much, much worse than I could ever be. He's made a career out of
being annoying.

> I've never seen Pearl being nasty.

You're not looking very closely. You seem to take the attitude that it
is much worse to use so-called "obscenities" than to be snarky or
condescending. I find the latter to be worse because it is not only
disrespectful, but being as it is couched in semi-civil language it is
also deceitful and manipulative.


> You people are hardly in a
> position to make any sort of complaint.

The only time I mention anything about it is in response to an
accusation of misconduct on my part, like above "is constantly imposing
on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication"

On Jul 26, 5:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:32 am, Dutch > wrote:
> > It is symmetrical. Everyone thinks there are some limits on what we
> > may do to animals to get benefits for ourselves. You draw the line
> > somewhere, we all do. That means you attack some people for hurting
> > animals whilst doing it yourself. You don't like the place where I
> > draw the line, but you haven't come up with any credible criticisms of
> > it.
>
> I assume you draw the line in a reasonable place based on my
> knowledge
> of you and my fundamental respect for your liberty. I do NOT criticize
> where you draw the line, that is a false impression. What I don't care
> for is your belief that where I draw the line is wrong.

What's the problem? You believe that where I draw the line is wrong. I
would be prepared to countenance more restrictions on animal
agriculture than you would.

> Based on the
> world we live in and the options available to us the place I draw the
> line is above reproach. I could do more, I could do less, as could you,
> but we are both living within the range of acceptability. Michael Vick
> is another story.

Well, that's your judgement. Why is it so terrible that someone else
makes a slightly different judgement?

Incidentally I have never said that your lifestyle is "outside the
range of acceptability". I don't know enough about it to make that
judgement. But you are prepared to pass judgement on Michael Vick,
well, okay, why is it so terrible that some people pass judgement on
those who regularly support the worst excesses of modern agriculture?

On Jul 26, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>> 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.
>
> > In my view, you have not given any satisfactory criticisms of what I
> > have said. Your inability to grasp this is not my problem.
>
> Your view is wrong.

Well, you don't agree with it. And I don't agree with the view you
have of my contributions. So one of us is wrong.

> I have stated precisely what I believe to be
> acceptable with regards to harming animals and what is not and given
> arguments to support those opinions.

I believe that I've done just as much in this department as you have.

> You have offered vague references
> to theories in "the literature".

I've talked about what I believe. I believe I've explained it
adequately. I'm sorry you haven't found it sufficiently clear. I may
attempt to clarify further if I feel so inclined.

> Even when you sort-of state an opinion,
> it's usually worded indirectly like, "Many people would say that X is
> true", you never just say what you believe. I am trying to discuss the
> issues, you are trying to appear to be highly knowledgeable without
> actually committing yourself to anything.

No, I'm afraid not. I've done just as much by way of committing myself
to a well-defined position and supporting it by argument as you have.

> Whatever you call that
> approach, that *is* your problem.

On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
> >>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
> >>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
> >>> relevant difference between them.
> >> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
> >> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
> >> intelligence and sentience.
>
> > But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
> > many times do I have to repeat *that*?
>
> You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
> alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
> "THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
> A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
>

Yes, I know you're impressed by that essay. I'm not impressed by that
part of it, as it stands. I don't find the explanation of the crucial
notion of "capacity" to be anything approaching adequate.

> The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
> non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
> display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
> have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
> "capacity",

Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.
He's saying there's some property that all humans have and no
nonhumans have. Fine, then it's his burden to state what it is. He
hasn't even begun to embark on this task.

> but that objection is weak and has not been put forth. In
> fact capacity is a transparent concept, an acorn possesses the capacity
> to become an oak tree, a fertile egg possesses the capacity to be a
> chicken, a baby human and a person in a coma possess the capacity to
> become a moral agent.
>

That sounds like by "capacity" you mean "potential ability", which he
explicitly disavows. And "potential ability" won't cover the cases
where the human is permanently impaired. You yourself don't have an
adequate understanding of a notion of "capacity" that will do the job.


> [..]

On Jul 12, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jul 11, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 11, 4:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> groups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jul 10, 5:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> >> No "but", skirt-boy. You live your cushy, feminine
> >> >> >> >> lifestyle on the backs of animal suffering.
>
> >> >> >> > You really are a bit weird, Ball. What exactly is a "skirt-boy"?
> >> >> >> > Why
> >> >> >> > exactly are you so concerned to insist that I am "feminine"? I
> >> >> >> > mean,
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > think your opinion on the matter is worthless, but even supposing
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > the sake of argument that it wasn't, the issue doesn't strike me
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> > being of great interest. I think your obsession with it is rather
> >> >> >> > comical.
>
> >> >> >> It's a sign of disdain ( I can't believe I had to explain it)
>
> >> >> > Yes, thank you. I knew perfectly well that it was an attempt to
> >> >> > express disdain. But it's an incredibly inept, stupid, and immature
> >> >> > way to express disdain, for a number of reasons:
>
> >> >> > (1) I know perfectly well that no-one who actually knows me regards
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > as feminine.
> >> >> > (2) I know that I am not queer.
> >> >> > (3) In any case, there is nothing wrong with being feminine or
> >> >> > queer.
> >> >> > No-one who is more mature than a twelve-year-old tries to put other
> >> >> > people down on that basis, let alone obsesses about it to the extent
> >> >> > that Ball does.
>
> >> >> It's a toss-off kind thing, the inappropriateness of it is rather the
> >> >> whole
> >> >> point. He doesn't really care if you're queer or not, he says those
> >> >> things
> >> >> to get up your nose, and succeeding.
>
> >> > There's an element of irritation, sure, although there's an element of
> >> > entertainment as well. Okay, so I find it irritating when grown men
> >> > act like children, so Ball acts like a child in order to irritate me,
> >> > and I respond by pointing out that he's acting like a child. Okay,
> >> > fine. I mean, I could interpret pretty much everything he says to me
> >> > along these lines. It's all got about the same level of credibility,
> >> > in my view.
>
> >> >> > What I was doing was marvelling at Ball's willingless to make a
> >> >> > complete clown out of himself in public. I can't believe I had to
> >> >> > explain that, yet again.
>
> >> >> I find it funny, why shouldn't we make clowns of ourselves? Nobody's
> >> >> watching here.
>
> >> > Well, okay, fine. It depends on your taste in humour, I guess. My
> >> > cousin is a *******, my friend Mark Pearson, the director of Animal
> >> > Liberation NSW, is ***, I had a friend once called Nick who was ***. I
> >> > happen to think these people are entitled to just as much respect as
> >> > any other member of the community and that the discrimination that
> >> > they face is a serious issue. So certainly Ball's behaviour has
> >> > entertainment value, but there's also a fairly strong element of
> >> > disgust. I don't think that decent people use "queer" as an insult,
> >> > even if they're just being clowns.
>
> >> >> > There are a few respects in which I don't have a very high opinion
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > you. But I was under the impression that you were a sensible adult.
> >> >> > If
> >> >> > you can't see what a ridiculous silly little child Ball is, then I
> >> >> > really am quite surprised.
>
> >> >> He's a highly intelligent, educated adult who acts that way in order
> >> >> to
> >> >> evoke a certain reaction out of a person he finds tedious and
> >> >> annoying,
> >> >> and
> >> >> it works perfectly.
>
> >> > He's certainly got a bit of education. As far as intelligence goes,
> >> > I've known people who have shown more signs of intelligence. We'll
> >> > probably have to agree to disagree on that one.
>
> >> > I mean, basically what you're doing here is making the conjecture that
> >> > he is a troll. Somehow, he finds it entertaining when he says stupid
> >> > things and I take the trouble to explain how extraordinarily stupid
> >> > he's being. Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. I don't really have a
> >> > problem with that. Hey, maybe you're all just trolling all the time
> >> > and don't really believe any of the things you say. I certainly quite
> >> > often have the experience of marvelling how anyone could talk such
> >> > nonsense. And apparently the feeling is mutual. Bit of a problem,
> >> > really. I choose to assume good faith and address everything people
> >> > say as though they meant it seriously.
>
> >> >> >> > Yes, there is a "but". You made a false claim about what I said
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > failed to support it.
>
> >> >> >> >> You prefer
> >> >> >> >> your easy, comfort-stuffed life to the hard work of
> >> >> >> >> actually living up to your (so-called <scoff>) ideals.
>
> >> >> >> > You think that I am committed to ideals which require me to do
> >> >> >> > absolutely everything I can in order to avoid buying products
> >> >> >> > whose
> >> >> >> > production involved harm to sentient beings. You are wrong. I am
> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> > committed to this position. I have not said anything which
> >> >> >> > logically
> >> >> >> > entails it. And I am not convinced that it is correct.
>
> >> >> >> Despite your own admitted confusion, you don't seem shy in
> >> >> >> suggesting
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> people who eat meat aren't doing enough.
>
> >> >> > That is not exactly what I say, and I don't spend all that much time
> >> >> > saying it, I spend most of my time defending myself against personal
> >> >> > attacks. I do occasionally express my view that most people are not
> >> >> > doing enough by way of reducing animal suffering, yes, for the sake
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > clarifying my position, I thought at one point you said you agreed
> >> >> > with me but you seem to have changed your mind. I really don't see
> >> >> > why
> >> >> > it is such a problematic position. Given the facts about modern
> >> >> > farming, it seems like a very plausible position to me. A number of
> >> >> > academic philosophers agree with this view and have argued for it at
> >> >> > length, and I've never seen anything, either here or in the
> >> >> > literature, which I really consider to be a serious criticism of
> >> >> > these
> >> >> > arguments.
>
> >> >> That's the kind of verbal tap-dance that earns you verbal abuse. I
> >> >> reckon
> >> >> that you don't even know you're doing it.
>
> >> > Well, you're right, I don't understand why it is a "verbal tap-dance".
> >> > Seemed like a good faith attempt at sensible discussion to me. Maybe
> >> > you could enlighten me what was wrong with it.
>
> I was as eager to do that as I am to untangle a ball of string after my cat
> is done with it.
>
> >> >> >> Somehow you got the idea that you
> >> >> >> have realized a fundamental truth about animals that has eluded 99%
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> world. Isn't it plausible that maybe it's you and the rest of the
> >> >> >> 1%
> >> >> >> who
> >> >> >> has
> >> >> >> gotten some wires crossed somewhere?
>
> >> >> > It's possible, but if that's the case shouldn't it be easy enough to
> >> >> > explain exactly how we've got our wires crossed? Can you show me
> >> >> > where
> >> >> > that's been done?
>
> >> >> It's exhausting listening to you, much less talking to you. The
> >> >> trouble
> >> >> is
> >> >> not in the explanation, the crossed wires don't just change the way
> >> >> you
> >> >> think, they work 24/7 in the background defending that way of thinking
> >> >> from
> >> >> conflicting ideas. In other words, you either can't see it or the
> >> >> significance is stripped away, or it is deleted from your memory a
> >> >> moment
> >> >> after you read or hear it. How do you expect me to fight that?
>
> >> > Well, if that's your view of the situation maybe you shouldn't
> >> > bother.
>
> >> > By the way, we were talking earlier about "condescension". Do you
> >> > really have the idea that expressing these views about me is not
> >> > condescending?
>
> >> I'm just trying to analyze what I'm seeing.
>

You, apparently, are allowed to do that, when I do it it is
"condescending", even though you are expressing derogatory views about
me and I am not expressing derogatory views about you. Very
interesting.

> >> > I'm not objecting, I just have a hard time seeing how
> >> > you can feel free to express such views about me and yet complain
> >> > about my behaviour. I mean, when I say that there are some areas of
> >> > moral philosophy which I understand a bit better than you, I'm not
> >> > expressing a derogatory opinion about you. There's no shame in being
> >> > relatively new to some areas of moral philosophy. I do have some
> >> > negative views about some aspects of your behaviour, sure, you don't
> >> > seem to mind when I express those. But for some reason you don't like
> >> > it when I express the view that I know a bit more than you about some
> >> > areas of moral philosophy.
>
> >> I don't want to hear about it. If you know a lot about moral philosophy
> >> then
> >> prove it by expressing an interesting or profound idea that I can relate
> >> to,
> >> that makes sense, rings true. That's what real knowledge allows you to
> >> do,
> >> not drop names and names of theories you've read about. Most of what you
> >> have said in the group doesn't ring true at all, it's a bunch theoretical
> >> bullshit that sounds like it was cooked up in some uni coffeee shop.
>
> >> > You say you think it's bullshit, okay, well
> >> > fine, presumably you regard the opinions I hold about you which
> >> > actually are derogatory as bullshit as well, and yet those opinions
> >> > don't bother you. I mean, I've no desire to annoy anyone
> >> > unnecessarily, but I'm not very clear on what you regard as rules of
> >> > reasonable conduct. I just don't see where you get the idea that my
> >> > conduct is so much more offensive than yours.
>
> >> It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're
> >> annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am
> >> too
> >> in my own way, I also get vebal abuse.
>
> > Except that
>
> > (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying,
> > and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these
> > reactions
>
> No, it started from the beginning and continues.
>

Well, fine, if it's annoying to be an ethical vegan. That seems to be
pretty much the attitude that all you people have. Seems a bit
irrational and bigoted to me, myself.

> > (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept
> > that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as
> > to justify anything resembling the reactions I get
>
> Tough shit if you don't accept it.
>

No, tough shit for you that you haven't persuaded me that your
absurdities are reasonable.

> > I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and
> > say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my
> > behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave,
> > and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will
> > continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to
> > rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd.
>
> Not my problem, if you want to get different reactions then act differently.
> The only person you can change is yourself. There is one person who attacks
> me viciously every time he comes here. He spends ages assembling lists of
> out of context quotes from over the years trying to present a distorted
> picture of what I believe. I just snip all his ranting and reply to anything
> of interest that may be in the message. You need to learn to stop trying to
> control how others react to you, philosopher.
>

It's not a question of trying to control others. I'm expressing my
views about the behaviour I observe here, just as you do.

> >> >> If you think that buying meat, dairy products, and
>
> >> >> > eggs, which have been produced in the way they typically are these
> >> >> > days, is perfectly all right, maybe you could say just a few words
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > defence of this position. Saying "Well, you yourself think it's all
> >> >> > right to buy tofu and vegetables" I don't find particularly
> >> >> > convincing.
>
> >> >> It's pointless really, going over and over it, you're invulnerable to
> >> >> reason.
>
> >> > When I say there are some areas of moral philosophy I know a bit more
> >> > about than you, I'm being condescending, but when you say I'm
> >> > invulnerable to reason, you're being reasonable.
>
> >> Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said
> >> previously
> >> it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it.
> >> You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when
> >> I
> >> challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices".
>
> > I've never shifted ground on equal consideration
>
> Then there's these constant denials. EVERY TIME I bring up some critique of
> your position you issue a deny, EVERY TIME. It's totally knee-jerk.
>

It's not knee-jerk. It's a fact. You asserted without argument that I
always back away from "equal consideration" when challenged on it.
That happens not to be true, so I pointed that out.

> > in response to a
> > challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean
> > that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't
> > accept that.
>
> I've described my position, that's not it, explain yours. Not what it
> DOESN'T mean, what it DOES mean.
>

I would think that someone who had been listening would have a
reasonable idea of that by now. I may have another go at trying to
explain it if and when I get round to it.

> > If you want to make your case against "equal
> > consideration"
>
> How can I make a case against something so amorphous? I have tried in any
> case. Anyway, the onus is firmly on your shoulders, EXPLAIN the idea, then
> support it. You have done neither.
>
> > in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort
> > to engage with other views that people have expressed about the
> > concept.
>
> I read DeGrazia's,

But did not adequately engage with it.

> now it's time for yours.
>

Fine. I'll write something about the matter if and when I get round to
it.

> I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved
>
> > unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor.
>
> I think it goes deeper than that, it's your thinking that is confused. If
> the concept was clear in your mind I have no doubt that you could express
> it. Since it is not clear in your mind, the explanations are equally
> unclear.
>

Well, that's the view you have. Quite a lot of professional
philosophers think differently. But I suppose they're all just
deluding themselves.

> Hey,
>
> > maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics
> > who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal
> > consideration" doesn't really mean anything.
>
> Until you demonstrate otherwise I tend to think that is the case. Listing
> yourself as among a list of "academics" is not a substitute for a coherent
> explanation. It's the kind of thing you do all the time that just invites
> more derision.
>

I have given coherent explanations. They don't satisfy you, well,
fine, I don't think the fault lies with the explanations. I may make
some more efforts in that direction if I feel like it. But I don't
think that the fact that the explanations don't satisfy you carries
any particular weight.

> > Somehow or other we've
> > managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious.
>
> It's either you who are not seeing the obvious or the other 99%, take your
> pick.
>

Most people haven't considered these issues very carefully. As far as
those who have actually considered them carefully go, a majority of
academic philosophers would agree that these arguments have not
received a satisfactory reply yet.

> > But I'm not
> > convinced that you're in a position to pass judgement on that issue
> > just yet. I could try to do more by way of trying to convey my
> > understanding of the concept to you, if you'd undertake to be a bit
> > more reasonable.
>
> I'm not optimistic that that will happen because I don't believe that the
> concept is coherent, therefore it doesn't lend itself to being parsed into
> clear, concise terms.
>
>
>
> >> That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as
> >> slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline.
>
> > Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid.
>
> There's that ever-present knee jerk denial again.
>

It's not knee-jerk denial. You made an unsupported derogatory
statement about it which I don't agree with. Of course I expressed my
disagreement with it.

> >You want to argue that
> > things that I have said commit me to positions stronger than those
> > that I actually wish to commit to. Well, you can try and convince me
> > if you want, but I think that your arguments manifest a lack of
> > understanding of what I am saying. And I don't really appreciate it
> > when you refuse to assume good faith on my part.
>
> I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I believe that the ideas you have chosen
> to advocate dictate this type of thinking and arguing. You have no choice,
> if you choose to support an incoherent position your arguments must
> necessarily be the same. If the concepts carried the weight of reason and
> truth they would lend themselves to clear articulation with no sophistry,
> name dropping or condescension.
>

I believe that I have given them clear articulation.

>
>
> >> > Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not
> >> > bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's
> >> > invulnerable to reason, is there now?
>
> >> There's always verbal abuse.
>
> > Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right
> > ahead.
>
> I already feel good about myself, verbal abuse just reflects my frustration
> with someone.
>

Well, it's not a very productive way of expressing your frustration,
is it? I mean, I occasionally feel moved to verbally abuse you, but
most of the time I just try to reason with you. I don't see any
particular point in taking any other approach, fruitless though it
might be.


> >> >> You've got yourself thoroughly convinced that what you're saying
> >> >> makes perfect sense. You're too clever for your own good by half, and
> >> >> not
> >> >> half-ways smart enough.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -

Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>> You must realize
>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>> Well, if
>>>> ****wit.
>>> There, there,
>> ****wit.
>
> Gee,

****wit.

fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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.
>>
>
> Jolly good. Well,

So, you beg to be called a fruit.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Classic,

And true.

fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> On Jul 21, 10:19 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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,
>
> False.

No, true. You assume the equal moral considerability
of animals that it is your obligation to prove.


>> and the ****wits - YOU - are
>> living their lives in direct violation of the supposed
>> beliefs.
>
> I'm not.

You are. I've shown it.


>> As the living of the lives is the truth and
>> the so-called beliefs are clearly seen as a lie, the
>> beliefs must go.
>>
>
> That's rubbish.

No.


>> You fatuous punk.

You stupid shitwipe.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 11:32 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>> It is symmetrical. Everyone thinks there are some limits on what we
>>> may do to animals to get benefits for ourselves. You draw the line
>>> somewhere, we all do. That means you attack some people for hurting
>>> animals whilst doing it yourself. You don't like the place where I
>>> draw the line, but you haven't come up with any credible criticisms of
>>> it.
>> I assume you draw the line in a reasonable place based on my
>> knowledge
>> of you and my fundamental respect for your liberty. I do NOT criticize
>> where you draw the line, that is a false impression. What I don't care
>> for is your belief that where I draw the line is wrong.
>
> What's the problem? You believe that where I draw the line is wrong.

No I don't. Where you draw the line is right for you, I respect your
personal decision.

> I
> would be prepared to countenance more restrictions on animal
> agriculture than you would.

If that's what feels right for you, I respect your right to lobby for
whatever restrictions you feel are right.

>> Based on the
>> world we live in and the options available to us the place I draw the
>> line is above reproach. I could do more, I could do less, as could you,
>> but we are both living within the range of acceptability. Michael Vick
>> is another story.
>
> Well, that's your judgement. Why is it so terrible that someone else
> makes a slightly different judgement?

I would ask you the same thing. After all this whole discussion is
started by someone on "your side" asserting that non-vegans have the
line in the wrong place. Certainly the world is not up in arms about
where vegans draw their line.

> Incidentally I have never said that your lifestyle is "outside the
> range of acceptability". I don't know enough about it to make that
> judgement.

And I never said that I accept "the worst excesses of modern agriculture".

> But you are prepared to pass judgement on Michael Vick,
> well, okay, why is it so terrible that some people pass judgement on
> those who regularly support the worst excesses of modern agriculture?

I don't think many people do, but that's the system that has evolved.
Just as excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical-based
fertilizer and large machines has evolved to keep plant agriculture
profitable while ever increasing the harm it does, industrialization has
evolved in animal agriculture. The reform of these processes is a
somewhat different discussion from the one about the fundamental rights
of animals.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> In my view, you have not given any satisfactory criticisms of what I
>>> have said. Your inability to grasp this is not my problem.
>> Your view is wrong.
>
> Well, you don't agree with it. And I don't agree with the view you
> have of my contributions. So one of us is wrong.
>
>> I have stated precisely what I believe to be
>> acceptable with regards to harming animals and what is not and given
>> arguments to support those opinions.
>
> I believe that I've done just as much in this department as you have.
>
>> You have offered vague references
>> to theories in "the literature".
>
> I've talked about what I believe. I believe I've explained it
> adequately. I'm sorry you haven't found it sufficiently clear. I may
> attempt to clarify further if I feel so inclined.

Typical knee-jerk denial followed by empty promises.


>> Even when you sort-of state an opinion,
>> it's usually worded indirectly like, "Many people would say that X is
>> true", you never just say what you believe. I am trying to discuss the
>> issues, you are trying to appear to be highly knowledgeable without
>> actually committing yourself to anything.
>
> No, I'm afraid not. I've done just as much by way of committing myself
> to a well-defined position and supporting it by argument as you have.
>
>> Whatever you call that
>> approach, that *is* your problem.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
>>>>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
>>>>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
>>>>> relevant difference between them.
>>>> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
>>>> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
>>>> intelligence and sentience.
>>> But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
>>> many times do I have to repeat *that*?
>> You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
>> alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
>> "THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
>> A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
>>
>
> Yes, I know you're impressed by that essay. I'm not impressed

You are incapable of being impressed by anything that dashes your
precious "argument from marginal cases".

by that
> part of it, as it stands. I don't find the explanation of the crucial
> notion of "capacity" to be anything approaching adequate.

Nonsense, you're just stalling. "Capacity" is not even the word in
question, the word you are questioning is "capability", it refers to the
"inherent ability" (of free will, reason and a linguistic competence)
such as exists in infants, which is distinct from "operative ability" of
those things which exist in normal adults.

>> The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
>> non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
>> display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
>> have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
>> "capacity",
>
> Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.

Which you did not even recall correctly..

> He's saying there's some property that all humans have and no
> nonhumans have.

Not ALL humans, the capability requires a functioning brain, and not
necessarily NO non-humans, it's possible that some non-human may someday
exhibit these capabilities and even plausible that great apes may
possess them to some degree.

Fine, then it's his burden to state what it is. He
> hasn't even begun to embark on this task.

Your usual lame burden-shifting. The capacity he refers to is the
capability to become a moral agent, and to exhibit the rest of the
constellation of advanced cognitive capabilities, free will, reason and
a linguistic competence. This "capability" is inherent in humans.

>
>> but that objection is weak and has not been put forth. In
>> fact capacity is a transparent concept, an acorn possesses the capacity
>> to become an oak tree, a fertile egg possesses the capacity to be a
>> chicken, a baby human and a person in a coma possess the capacity to
>> become a moral agent.
>>
>
> That sounds like by "capacity" you mean "potential ability", which he
> explicitly disavows.

No he does not, in your haste to dismiss this essay you misread it. The
sentence to which I assume you are referring is this one: "In that case
the subject is a moral person without being a moral agent, since moral
personhood is grounded on the actual capability and not on the potential
ability." This in no way leaves the definition of "capability" open to
question. By the term "potential" ability here he means ability as it
will be realized at some future time, as opposed to "capability" which
is simply the property as it exists now. Like a good little sophist you
have seized on the one sentence in the entire essay that is just
slightly ambiguous and you're using it to dismiss the whole thing.


> And "potential ability" won't cover the cases
> where the human is permanently impaired.

He covers that by referring to the benefit of the doubt. There is no
such doubt with respect to non-humans, they lack the inherent
capabilities, except for possibly great apes.

You yourself don't have an
> adequate understanding of a notion of "capacity" that will do the job.

What a joke, you tell me I don't have an adequate understanding of the
word and you are not even using the right word. Read in context,
capability and ability are clearly defined as the two sub-types of
"capacities" which animals exhibit.

"On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two
kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral
agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or
her actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the
capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also
the operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice.
However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without
having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral
person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded
on the actual capability and not on the *potential ability*. Two
consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it extends
moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and necessary
condition for this extension is the presence of the capability of moral
agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the operative
ability is also present. On this ground equal inherent value and equal
basic rights can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human beings.
Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not
equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as
in normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages
of pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents,
but *they have it potentially* and it will be actualised in due time"

I don't expect you to get it, ever, because it would mean you would have
to rewrite and rebut essays you have already gone on record as giving,
and maybe even give up your directorship in the "Animal Liberation
Society" or whatever. Talk about lack of objectivity.. don't even talk
about your approach and science in the same paragraph.

<insert usual huffy denials>

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>>>>> my conduct is so much more offensive than yours.
>>>> It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're
>>>> annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am
>>>> too
>>>> in my own way, I also get vebal abuse.
>>> Except that
>>> (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying,
>>> and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these
>>> reactions
>> No, it started from the beginning and continues.
>>
>
> Well, fine, if it's annoying to be an ethical vegan. That seems to be
> pretty much the attitude that all you people have. Seems a bit
> irrational and bigoted to me, myself.

It's not irrational or bigoted, it's well-founded, based from
experience. "Ethical vegans" have shown themselves to be narrow-minded,
judgmental, self-righteous twits.

>>> (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept
>>> that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as
>>> to justify anything resembling the reactions I get
>> Tough shit if you don't accept it.
>>
>
> No, tough shit for you that you haven't persuaded me that your
> absurdities are reasonable.

I don't base my assessment of my success on convincing entrenched
"Ethical vegans" of anything, that would be futile. I am making the
observations I make and leaving it at that.


>>> I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and
>>> say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my
>>> behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave,
>>> and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will
>>> continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to
>>> rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd.
>> Not my problem, if you want to get different reactions then act differently.
>> The only person you can change is yourself. There is one person who attacks
>> me viciously every time he comes here. He spends ages assembling lists of
>> out of context quotes from over the years trying to present a distorted
>> picture of what I believe. I just snip all his ranting and reply to anything
>> of interest that may be in the message. You need to learn to stop trying to
>> control how others react to you, philosopher.
>>
>
> It's not a question of trying to control others. I'm expressing my
> views about the behaviour I observe here, just as you do.

Ho hum, your usual denial. When you issue ultimatums you are trying to
control how others act.

[..]

>>>> Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said
>>>> previously
>>>> it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it.
>>>> You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when
>>>> I
>>>> challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices".
>>> I've never shifted ground on equal consideration
>> Then there's these constant denials. EVERY TIME I bring up some critique of
>> your position you issue a deny, EVERY TIME. It's totally knee-jerk.
>>
>
> It's not knee-jerk. It's a fact. You asserted without argument that I
> always back away from "equal consideration" when challenged on it.
> That happens not to be true, so I pointed that out.

Ho hum.. "equal consideration" \= "certain practices"

>>> in response to a
>>> challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean
>>> that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't
>>> accept that.
>> I've described my position, that's not it, explain yours. Not what it
>> DOESN'T mean, what it DOES mean.
>>
>
> I would think that someone who had been listening would have a
> reasonable idea of that by now.

Yea, I *sorta* get it, but you leave it all implied, or stated as the
opinions of "resonable people" so we can't pin you down on anything.

> I may have another go at trying to
> explain it if and when I get round to it.

Ho hum, I'll just keep breathing in the meantime..

>>> If you want to make your case against "equal
>>> consideration"
>> How can I make a case against something so amorphous? I have tried in any
>> case. Anyway, the onus is firmly on your shoulders, EXPLAIN the idea, then
>> support it. You have done neither.
>>
>>> in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort
>>> to engage with other views that people have expressed about the
>>> concept.
>> I read DeGrazia's,
>
> But did not adequately engage with it.

You mean I rejected it.

>> now it's time for yours.
>>
>
> Fine. I'll write something about the matter if and when I get round to
> it.

Ho hum..

>
>> I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved
>>
>>> unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor.
>> I think it goes deeper than that, it's your thinking that is confused. If
>> the concept was clear in your mind I have no doubt that you could express
>> it. Since it is not clear in your mind, the explanations are equally
>> unclear.
>>
>
> Well, that's the view you have. Quite a lot of professional
> philosophers think differently. But I suppose they're all just
> deluding themselves.

Ho hum...

>
>> Hey,
>>
>>> maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics
>>> who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal
>>> consideration" doesn't really mean anything.

Ho hum..

>> Until you demonstrate otherwise I tend to think that is the case. Listing
>> yourself as among a list of "academics" is not a substitute for a coherent
>> explanation. It's the kind of thing you do all the time that just invites
>> more derision.
>>
>
> I have given coherent explanations. They don't satisfy you, well,
> fine, I don't think the fault lies with the explanations. I may make
> some more efforts in that direction if I feel like it. But I don't
> think that the fact that the explanations don't satisfy you carries
> any particular weight.

except that I am the person you're talking to.

>>> Somehow or other we've
>>> managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious.
>> It's either you who are not seeing the obvious or the other 99%, take your
>> pick.
>>
>
> Most people haven't considered these issues very carefully. As far as
> those who have actually considered them carefully go, a majority of
> academic philosophers would agree that these arguments have not
> received a satisfactory reply yet.

Ho hum, there's those same references to this group of learned
philosophers who agree with you..

[..]

>> I'm not optimistic that that will happen because I don't believe that the
>> concept is coherent, therefore it doesn't lend itself to being parsed into
>> clear, concise terms.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as
>>>> slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline.
>>> Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid.
>> There's that ever-present knee jerk denial again.
>>
>
> It's not knee-jerk denial. You made an unsupported derogatory
> statement about it which I don't agree with. Of course I expressed my
> disagreement with it.

Of course, just like you always do.


[..]

>> I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I believe that the ideas you have chosen
>> to advocate dictate this type of thinking and arguing. You have no choice,
>> if you choose to support an incoherent position your arguments must
>> necessarily be the same. If the concepts carried the weight of reason and
>> truth they would lend themselves to clear articulation with no sophistry,
>> name dropping or condescension.
>>
>
> I believe that I have given them clear articulation.

Ho hum

>
>>
>>>>> Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not
>>>>> bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's
>>>>> invulnerable to reason, is there now?
>>>> There's always verbal abuse.
>>> Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right
>>> ahead.
>> I already feel good about myself, verbal abuse just reflects my frustration
>> with someone.
>>
>
> Well, it's not a very productive way of expressing your frustration,
> is it?

Yes, quite often it is quite satisfying.

I mean, I occasionally feel moved to verbally abuse you, but
> most of the time I just try to reason with you. I don't see any
> particular point in taking any other approach, fruitless though it
> might be.

When it becomes apparent that reason is futile that leaves a limited
array of alternatives.

[..]

On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>> Well, if
> >>>> ****wit.
> >>> There, there,
> >> ****wit.
>
> > Gee,
>
> ****wit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know, Ball, people would respect you so much more if you'd just be
a man about it. If you'd just say "Yeah, you're right, Rupert, I guess
I looked pretty silly on that occasion, I'll try not to be so silly in
the future." It wouldn't hurt nearly as much as you think, and people
would respect you so much more.

Or, if you're determined to keep making a joke of yourself, you could
at least come up with something more original to say than "****wit". I
mean, you accuse others of not being original.

But I think "****wit" is about the best we can expect from you, isn't
it, Ball?

On Jul 27, 4:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >>>>> my conduct is so much more offensive than yours.
> >>>> It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're
> >>>> annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am
> >>>> too
> >>>> in my own way, I also get vebal abuse.
> >>> Except that
> >>> (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying,
> >>> and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these
> >>> reactions
> >> No, it started from the beginning and continues.
>
> > Well, fine, if it's annoying to be an ethical vegan. That seems to be
> > pretty much the attitude that all you people have. Seems a bit
> > irrational and bigoted to me, myself.
>
> It's not irrational or bigoted, it's well-founded, based from
> experience. "Ethical vegans" have shown themselves to be narrow-minded,
> judgmental, self-righteous twits.
>

No, that's the antis.

> >>> (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept
> >>> that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as
> >>> to justify anything resembling the reactions I get
> >> Tough shit if you don't accept it.
>
> > No, tough shit for you that you haven't persuaded me that your
> > absurdities are reasonable.
>
> I don't base my assessment of my success on convincing entrenched
> "Ethical vegans" of anything, that would be futile. I am making the
> observations I make and leaving it at that.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and
> >>> say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my
> >>> behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave,
> >>> and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will
> >>> continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to
> >>> rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd.
> >> Not my problem, if you want to get different reactions then act differently.
> >> The only person you can change is yourself. There is one person who attacks
> >> me viciously every time he comes here. He spends ages assembling lists of
> >> out of context quotes from over the years trying to present a distorted
> >> picture of what I believe. I just snip all his ranting and reply to anything
> >> of interest that may be in the message. You need to learn to stop trying to
> >> control how others react to you, philosopher.
>
> > It's not a question of trying to control others. I'm expressing my
> > views about the behaviour I observe here, just as you do.
>
> Ho hum, your usual denial. When you issue ultimatums you are trying to
> control how others act.
>

No, I'm not. I'm just specifying the conditions under which I'll
engage in conversation with people. There's really nothing wrong with
engaging in denial when it's denial of palpable rubbish.

> [..]
>
> >>>> Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said
> >>>> previously
> >>>> it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it.
> >>>> You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when
> >>>> I
> >>>> challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices".
> >>> I've never shifted ground on equal consideration
> >> Then there's these constant denials. EVERY TIME I bring up some critique of
> >> your position you issue a deny, EVERY TIME. It's totally knee-jerk.
>
> > It's not knee-jerk. It's a fact. You asserted without argument that I
> > always back away from "equal consideration" when challenged on it.
> > That happens not to be true, so I pointed that out.
>
> Ho hum.. "equal consideration" \= "certain practices"
>

Never said otherwise.

> >>> in response to a
> >>> challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean
> >>> that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't
> >>> accept that.
> >> I've described my position, that's not it, explain yours. Not what it
> >> DOESN'T mean, what it DOES mean.
>
> > I would think that someone who had been listening would have a
> > reasonable idea of that by now.
>
> Yea, I *sorta* get it, but you leave it all implied, or stated as the
> opinions of "resonable people" so we can't pin you down on anything.
>

I think I've been pretty explicit about it. I may write something up
to try to make it clear once again, if I feel so inclined.

> > I may have another go at trying to
> > explain it if and when I get round to it.
>
> Ho hum, I'll just keep breathing in the meantime..
>
> >>> If you want to make your case against "equal
> >>> consideration"
> >> How can I make a case against something so amorphous? I have tried in any
> >> case. Anyway, the onus is firmly on your shoulders, EXPLAIN the idea, then
> >> support it. You have done neither.
>
> >>> in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort
> >>> to engage with other views that people have expressed about the
> >>> concept.
> >> I read DeGrazia's,
>
> > But did not adequately engage with it.
>
> You mean I rejected it.
>

Without giving decent criticisms of it, yet.

> >> now it's time for yours.
>
> > Fine. I'll write something about the matter if and when I get round to
> > it.
>
> Ho hum..
>
>
>
> >> I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved
>
> >>> unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor.
> >> I think it goes deeper than that, it's your thinking that is confused. If
> >> the concept was clear in your mind I have no doubt that you could express
> >> it. Since it is not clear in your mind, the explanations are equally
> >> unclear.
>
> > Well, that's the view you have. Quite a lot of professional
> > philosophers think differently. But I suppose they're all just
> > deluding themselves.
>
> Ho hum...
>
>
>
> >> Hey,
>
> >>> maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics
> >>> who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal
> >>> consideration" doesn't really mean anything.
>
> Ho hum..
>
> >> Until you demonstrate otherwise I tend to think that is the case. Listing
> >> yourself as among a list of "academics" is not a substitute for a coherent
> >> explanation. It's the kind of thing you do all the time that just invites
> >> more derision.
>
> > I have given coherent explanations. They don't satisfy you, well,
> > fine, I don't think the fault lies with the explanations. I may make
> > some more efforts in that direction if I feel like it. But I don't
> > think that the fact that the explanations don't satisfy you carries
> > any particular weight.
>
> except that I am the person you're talking to.
>
> >>> Somehow or other we've
> >>> managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious.
> >> It's either you who are not seeing the obvious or the other 99%, take your
> >> pick.
>
> > Most people haven't considered these issues very carefully. As far as
> > those who have actually considered them carefully go, a majority of
> > academic philosophers would agree that these arguments have not
> > received a satisfactory reply yet.
>
> Ho hum, there's those same references to this group of learned
> philosophers who agree with you..
>

Yes, that's right. Seems to me like a reasonable enough point to make
under the circumstances.

> [..]
>
> >> I'm not optimistic that that will happen because I don't believe that the
> >> concept is coherent, therefore it doesn't lend itself to being parsed into
> >> clear, concise terms.
>
> >>>> That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as
> >>>> slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline.
> >>> Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid.
> >> There's that ever-present knee jerk denial again.
>
> > It's not knee-jerk denial. You made an unsupported derogatory
> > statement about it which I don't agree with. Of course I expressed my
> > disagreement with it.
>
> Of course, just like you always do.
>

Yes. I express my disagreement with you when as far as I am concerned
you are talking palpable nonsense. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about
it, it's a considered opinion.

> [..]
>
> >> I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I believe that the ideas you have chosen
> >> to advocate dictate this type of thinking and arguing. You have no choice,
> >> if you choose to support an incoherent position your arguments must
> >> necessarily be the same. If the concepts carried the weight of reason and
> >> truth they would lend themselves to clear articulation with no sophistry,
> >> name dropping or condescension.
>
> > I believe that I have given them clear articulation.
>
> Ho hum
>
>
>
> >>>>> Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not
> >>>>> bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's
> >>>>> invulnerable to reason, is there now?
> >>>> There's always verbal abuse.
> >>> Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right
> >>> ahead.
> >> I already feel good about myself, verbal abuse just reflects my frustration
> >> with someone.
>
> > Well, it's not a very productive way of expressing your frustration,
> > is it?
>
> Yes, quite often it is quite satisfying.
>

Seems a bit sad to me.

> I mean, I occasionally feel moved to verbally abuse you, but
>
> > most of the time I just try to reason with you. I don't see any
> > particular point in taking any other approach, fruitless though it
> > might be.
>
> When it becomes apparent that reason is futile that leaves a limited
> array of alternatives.
>

You could always find something better to do, if you really think
we're immune to reason.

> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy 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.
>
> > Jolly good. Well,
>
> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
>

Er, no. There is really nothing particularly noteworthy about that
photo at all, Ball. You have your own idiosyncratic reaction to it,
which no other person I have encountered shares, that is really
nothing to do with me.

Your calling my photo "fruity" is just as childish and silly as my
speculating on the basis of your photo that you're unable to satisfy
women.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > Classic,
>
> And true.

Really? So I don't burst out laughing when I read this nonsense from
you? Fascinating.

On Jul 27, 3:43 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>> In my view, you have not given any satisfactory criticisms of what I
> >>> have said. Your inability to grasp this is not my problem.
> >> Your view is wrong.
>
> > Well, you don't agree with it. And I don't agree with the view you
> > have of my contributions. So one of us is wrong.
>
> >> I have stated precisely what I believe to be
> >> acceptable with regards to harming animals and what is not and given
> >> arguments to support those opinions.
>
> > I believe that I've done just as much in this department as you have.
>
> >> You have offered vague references
> >> to theories in "the literature".
>
> > I've talked about what I believe. I believe I've explained it
> > adequately. I'm sorry you haven't found it sufficiently clear. I may
> > attempt to clarify further if I feel so inclined.
>
> Typical knee-jerk denial followed by empty promises.
>

Not knee-jerk denial. Simple statement of my view, which is at least
as well-supported as your own. No empty promises. No promises at all,
in fact. I'll make further efforts to explain myself if I feel so
inclined, and I couldn't care less what you think about the matter.

>
>
> >> Even when you sort-of state an opinion,
> >> it's usually worded indirectly like, "Many people would say that X is
> >> true", you never just say what you believe. I am trying to discuss the
> >> issues, you are trying to appear to be highly knowledgeable without
> >> actually committing yourself to anything.
>
> > No, I'm afraid not. I've done just as much by way of committing myself
> > to a well-defined position and supporting it by argument as you have.
>
> >> Whatever you call that
> >> approach, that *is* your problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
> >>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
> >>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
> >>> relevant difference between them.
> >> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
> >> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
> >> intelligence and sentience.
>
> > But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
> > many times do I have to repeat *that*?
>
> You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
> alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
> "THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
> A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
>

Yes, we know you're very impressed with that essay. However, that
essay does a very unsatisfactory job of making its case with regard to
the claim that you're focussing on, for reasons already discussed
several times.

> The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
> non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
> display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
> have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
> "capacity", but that objection is weak

As things stand, it's an absolutely decisive objection. He's set
himself the task of specifying a property that all humans have and no
nonhumans have. He's given no clue as to what this property is.

> and has not been put forth. In
> fact capacity is a transparent concept, an acorn possesses the capacity
> to become an oak tree, a fertile egg possesses the capacity to be a
> chicken, a baby human and a person in a coma possess the capacity to
> become a moral agent.
>

It sounds like by "capability" you mean "potential ability", which he
explicitly disavows. On this view of yours a sperm-egg pair would have
full moral status, which is an interesting result. Also, this wouldn't
account for how permanently impaired humans have full moral status.
You don't have a notion of "capability" in mind which does the job you
want it to. You're not thinking critically about this argument.

> [..]

On Jul 27, 3:42 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 5:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 21, 11:32 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>> It is symmetrical. Everyone thinks there are some limits on what we
> >>> may do to animals to get benefits for ourselves. You draw the line
> >>> somewhere, we all do. That means you attack some people for hurting
> >>> animals whilst doing it yourself. You don't like the place where I
> >>> draw the line, but you haven't come up with any credible criticisms of
> >>> it.
> >> I assume you draw the line in a reasonable place based on my
> >> knowledge
> >> of you and my fundamental respect for your liberty. I do NOT criticize
> >> where you draw the line, that is a false impression. What I don't care
> >> for is your belief that where I draw the line is wrong.
>
> > What's the problem? You believe that where I draw the line is wrong.
>
> No I don't. Where you draw the line is right for you, I respect your
> personal decision.
>
> > I
> > would be prepared to countenance more restrictions on animal
> > agriculture than you would.
>
> If that's what feels right for you, I respect your right to lobby for
> whatever restrictions you feel are right.
>
> >> Based on the
> >> world we live in and the options available to us the place I draw the
> >> line is above reproach. I could do more, I could do less, as could you,
> >> but we are both living within the range of acceptability. Michael Vick
> >> is another story.
>
> > Well, that's your judgement. Why is it so terrible that someone else
> > makes a slightly different judgement?
>
> I would ask you the same thing. After all this whole discussion is
> started by someone on "your side" asserting that non-vegans have the
> line in the wrong place. Certainly the world is not up in arms about
> where vegans draw their line.
>

Well, this is slightly bizarre to me. I have never abused anyone for
the position they take or the lifestyle they choose to lead. I came in
here and got untold abuse and scorn from day one because I was an
ethical vegan. Now you're saying wherever I choose to draw the line is
fine. Seems to me you're not being very consistent.

You can't say I'm the one being judgmental, that's absurd. This has
been all about my defending myself from your constant personal
attacks. I've never made any personal attacks on you, I've
occasionally made derogatory remarks about the quality of your
arguments or about the way you conduct yourself, under severe
provocation. Now it looks as though you're taking all these personal
attacks back. Well, that's great. Maybe there's hope for actually
having a sensible exchange of views without bringing personal
invective into it.

> > Incidentally I have never said that your lifestyle is "outside the
> > range of acceptability". I don't know enough about it to make that
> > judgement.
>
> And I never said that I accept "the worst excesses of modern agriculture".
>

But you do say it's presumptuous of me to suggest that it's morally
wrong for people to financially support them.

> > But you are prepared to pass judgement on Michael Vick,
> > well, okay, why is it so terrible that some people pass judgement on
> > those who regularly support the worst excesses of modern agriculture?
>
> I don't think many people do,

I meant "financially support". Of course they do that, otherwise the
excesses in question wouldn't exist.

> but that's the system that has evolved.
> Just as excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical-based
> fertilizer and large machines has evolved to keep plant agriculture
> profitable while ever increasing the harm it does, industrialization has
> evolved in animal agriculture. The reform of these processes is a
> somewhat different discussion from the one about the fundamental rights
> of animals.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 27, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>
> > On Jul 21, 10:19 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:118205 ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1182 .. .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>
> > False.
>
> No, true. You assume the equal moral considerability
> of animals that it is your obligation to prove.
>

I've given an argument for it, you've given no adequate answer.

> >> and the ****wits - YOU - are
> >> living their lives in direct violation of the supposed
> >> beliefs.
>
> > I'm not.
>
> You are. I've shown it.
>

Nonsense.

> >> As the living of the lives is the truth and
> >> the so-called beliefs are clearly seen as a lie, the
> >> beliefs must go.
>
> > That's rubbish.
>
> No.
>

Of course it is.

> >> You fatuous punk.
>
> You stupid shitwipe.

On Jul 27, 4:33 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>> That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
> >>>>> We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
> >>>>> different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
> >>>>> relevant difference between them.
> >>>> How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
> >>>> differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
> >>>> intelligence and sentience.
> >>> But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
> >>> many times do I have to repeat *that*?
> >> You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
> >> alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
> >> "THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
> >> A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
>
> > Yes, I know you're impressed by that essay. I'm not impressed
>
> You are incapable of being impressed by anything that dashes your
> precious "argument from marginal cases".
>

I haven't seen anything that dashes it. If I did encounter a good
reply to it, I would be impressed.

> by that
>
> > part of it, as it stands. I don't find the explanation of the crucial
> > notion of "capacity" to be anything approaching adequate.
>
> Nonsense, you're just stalling.

No, I'm not. There has been nothing resembling an adequate attempt at
defining the crucial notion of "capability". Without that, the
argument is a nonstarter.

> "Capacity" is not even the word in
> question, the word you are questioning is "capability", it refers to the
> "inherent ability" (of free will, reason and a linguistic competence)
> such as exists in infants, which is distinct from "operative ability" of
> those things which exist in normal adults.
>

What is this "inherent ability" that infants have? You've got to
clarify the sense in which infants have an "inherent ability" to have
free will, reason, and linguistic competence. It's totally obscure.

> >> The class of beings called "moral persons" satisfies this objection. No
> >> non-human possesses the inherent capacity to be a moral agent or to
> >> display the other markers for advanced intelligence and sentience. You
> >> have tried to hang your hat on a supposed lack of clarity of the word
> >> "capacity",
>
> > Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.
>
> Which you did not even recall correctly..
>

I inadvertantly said "capacity" instead of "capability", that is a
trivial issue. My point stands.

> > He's saying there's some property that all humans have and no
> > nonhumans have.
>
> Not ALL humans, the capability requires a functioning brain, and not
> necessarily NO non-humans, it's possible that some non-human may someday
> exhibit these capabilities and even plausible that great apes may
> possess them to some degree.
>

Mutatis mutandis, my point still stands.

> Fine, then it's his burden to state what it is. He
>
> > hasn't even begun to embark on this task.
>
> Your usual lame burden-shifting.

Absolute crap. He has an obligation to explain the crucial notion of
"capability". He hasn't met it.


> The capacity he refers to is the
> capability to become a moral agent, and to exhibit the rest of the
> constellation of advanced cognitive capabilities, free will, reason and
> a linguistic competence. This "capability" is inherent in humans.
>

You've given no clue as to what it is, and why it is inherent in all
humans with a brain, but no nonhumans as far as we know.

>
>
> >> but that objection is weak and has not been put forth. In
> >> fact capacity is a transparent concept, an acorn possesses the capacity
> >> to become an oak tree, a fertile egg possesses the capacity to be a
> >> chicken, a baby human and a person in a coma possess the capacity to
> >> become a moral agent.
>
> > That sounds like by "capacity" you mean "potential ability", which he
> > explicitly disavows.
>
> No he does not, in your haste to dismiss this essay you misread it. The
> sentence to which I assume you are referring is this one: "In that case
> the subject is a moral person without being a moral agent, since moral
> personhood is grounded on the actual capability and not on the potential
> ability."

Which makes it clear that capability is not the same as potential
ability, as I said.

> This in no way leaves the definition of "capability" open to
> question.

No definition has been given. You don't really know what it means, you
only think you do.


> By the term "potential" ability here he means ability as it
> will be realized at some future time, as opposed to "capability" which
> is simply the property as it exists now.

*What* property?

> Like a good little sophist you
> have seized on the one sentence in the entire essay that is just
> slightly ambiguous and you're using it to dismiss the whole thing.
>

Go and get stuffed. There is nothing resembling an adequate
explanation of what "capability" means. And you call me a sophist.
You're the one who is impervious to reason.

> > And "potential ability" won't cover the cases
> > where the human is permanently impaired.
>
> He covers that by referring to the benefit of the doubt.

In that case, there's no good reason not to extend the benefit of the
doubt to nonhumans as well.

> There is no
> such doubt with respect to non-humans, they lack the inherent
> capabilities,

*What* inherent capabilities do they lack that aren't also lacked by
marginal humans?

> except for possibly great apes.
>
> You yourself don't have an
>
> > adequate understanding of a notion of "capacity" that will do the job.
>
> What a joke, you tell me I don't have an adequate understanding of the
> word and you are not even using the right word. Read in context,
> capability and ability are clearly defined as the two sub-types of
> "capacities" which animals exhibit.
>

No adequate definition is given.

> "On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two
> kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral
> agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or
> her actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the
> capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also
> the operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice.
> However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without
> having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral
> person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded
> on the actual capability and not on the *potential ability*. Two
> consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it extends
> moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and necessary
> condition for this extension is the presence of the capability of moral
> agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the operative
> ability is also present. On this ground equal inherent value and equal
> basic rights can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human beings.
> Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not
> equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as
> in normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages
> of pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents,
> but *they have it potentially* and it will be actualised in due time"
>

There's no explanation of "capability" here.

> I don't expect you to get it, ever, because it would mean you would have
> to rewrite and rebut essays you have already gone on record as giving,
> and maybe even give up your directorship in the "Animal Liberation
> Society" or whatever. Talk about lack of objectivity.. don't even talk
> about your approach and science in the same paragraph.
>

If I came to the conclusion that I had to modify my position, I would,
and I would modify my presentation on animal ethics accordingly. I
don't have a directorship at Animal Liberation, I'm a volunteer, I
can't imagine why would ever stop volunteering, unless I really came
to the conclusion that the goals we pursued weren't worthy.

All this stuff about me not being objective is just nonsense. An
adequate explanation of the notion of "capability" has not been given,
the guy himself would admit that. You're kidding yourself that you've
got this knockdown argument, as things stand the argument hasn't got
started. The notion of "capability" has to be explained.

> <insert usual huffy denials>

You quite often deny things I say, you know. There's really nothing
wrong with denying something someone says if you think they're talking
rubbish.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 5:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>>> my conduct is so much more offensive than yours.
>>>>>> It's not about reasonable conduct, it's about being annoying. You're
>>>>>> annoying, and that's why you get the reactions you get. I probably am
>>>>>> too
>>>>>> in my own way, I also get vebal abuse.
>>>>> Except that
>>>>> (1) I got these reactions long before I had a chance to be annoying,
>>>>> and in fact my allegedly "annoying" behaviour is a response to these
>>>>> reactions
>>>> No, it started from the beginning and continues.
>>> Well, fine, if it's annoying to be an ethical vegan. That seems to be
>>> pretty much the attitude that all you people have. Seems a bit
>>> irrational and bigoted to me, myself.
>> It's not irrational or bigoted, it's well-founded, based from
>> experience. "Ethical vegans" have shown themselves to be narrow-minded,
>> judgmental, self-righteous twits.
>>
>
> No

YES!

>
>>>>> (2) even if I had been the one to cast the first stone, I don't accept
>>>>> that my behaviour gives sufficient reasonable cause for annoyance as
>>>>> to justify anything resembling the reactions I get
>>>> Tough shit if you don't accept it.
>>> No, tough shit for you that you haven't persuaded me that your
>>> absurdities are reasonable.
>> I don't base my assessment of my success on convincing entrenched
>> "Ethical vegans" of anything, that would be futile. I am making the
>> observations I make and leaving it at that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I don't accept the absurd way you people try and turn it around and
>>>>> say that you are the ones who have cause to complain about my
>>>>> behaviour. My behaviour does not compare to the way any of you behave,
>>>>> and you started behaving unreasonably first, and furthermore you will
>>>>> continue to do so no matter what I do. I find your attempts to
>>>>> rationalize the way the antis behave here absurd.
>>>> Not my problem, if you want to get different reactions then act differently.
>>>> The only person you can change is yourself. There is one person who attacks
>>>> me viciously every time he comes here. He spends ages assembling lists of
>>>> out of context quotes from over the years trying to present a distorted
>>>> picture of what I believe. I just snip all his ranting and reply to anything
>>>> of interest that may be in the message. You need to learn to stop trying to
>>>> control how others react to you, philosopher.
>>> It's not a question of trying to control others. I'm expressing my
>>> views about the behaviour I observe here, just as you do.
>> Ho hum, your usual denial. When you issue ultimatums you are trying to
>> control how others act.
>>
>
> No, I'm not. I'm just specifying the conditions under which I'll
> engage in conversation with people. There's really nothing wrong with
> engaging in denial when it's denial of palpable rubbish.

You're in denial of every single criticism of your approach here.

>> [..]
>>
>>>>>> Everything you say is spin. When you refer to what you have said
>>>>>> previously
>>>>>> it's rephrased to sound more palatable than when you originally said it.
>>>>>> You'll make a statement about "equal consideration for animals" then when
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> challenge you on it, suddenly you were "objecting to certain practices".
>>>>> I've never shifted ground on equal consideration
>>>> Then there's these constant denials. EVERY TIME I bring up some critique of
>>>> your position you issue a deny, EVERY TIME. It's totally knee-jerk.
>>> It's not knee-jerk. It's a fact. You asserted without argument that I
>>> always back away from "equal consideration" when challenged on it.
>>> That happens not to be true, so I pointed that out.
>> Ho hum.. "equal consideration" \= "certain practices"
>>
>
> Never said otherwise.

You probably wouldn't recall but those are two ends of one of your
favorite goalpost moves. You start by supporting equal consideration
then when pressed on it you shift to not supporting "certain practices".
You're slippery as an eel.


>>>>> in response to a
>>>>> challenge from you. You think that "equal consideration" must mean
>>>>> that we grant all members of the kingdom absolute rights, I don't
>>>>> accept that.
>>>> I've described my position, that's not it, explain yours. Not what it
>>>> DOESN'T mean, what it DOES mean.
>>> I would think that someone who had been listening would have a
>>> reasonable idea of that by now.
>> Yea, I *sorta* get it, but you leave it all implied, or stated as the
>> opinions of "reasonable people" so we can't pin you down on anything.
>>
>
> I think I've been pretty explicit about it. I may write something up
> to try to make it clear once again, if I feel so inclined.

It's never been clear and never will be until YOU are clear.

>>> I may have another go at trying to
>>> explain it if and when I get round to it.
>> Ho hum, I'll just keep breathing in the meantime..
>>
>>>>> If you want to make your case against "equal
>>>>> consideration"
>>>> How can I make a case against something so amorphous? I have tried in any
>>>> case. Anyway, the onus is firmly on your shoulders, EXPLAIN the idea, then
>>>> support it. You have done neither.
>>>>> in that way then you'll have to make more of an effort
>>>>> to engage with other views that people have expressed about the
>>>>> concept.
>>>> I read DeGrazia's,
>>> But did not adequately engage with it.
>> You mean I rejected it.
>>
>
> Without giving decent criticisms of it, yet.

I gave an accurate criticism of it. It was a circular exercise in
shifting the burden. An example of a straightforward scholarly approach
can be found in moralstat99.


>>>> now it's time for yours.
>>> Fine. I'll write something about the matter if and when I get round to
>>> it.
>> Ho hum..
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I've made some effort to explain those to you, it's proved
>>>>> unproductive. Maybe it's due to my limitations as an expositor.
>>>> I think it goes deeper than that, it's your thinking that is confused. If
>>>> the concept was clear in your mind I have no doubt that you could express
>>>> it. Since it is not clear in your mind, the explanations are equally
>>>> unclear.
>>> Well, that's the view you have. Quite a lot of professional
>>> philosophers think differently. But I suppose they're all just
>>> deluding themselves.
>> Ho hum...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>> maybe you're right, maybe DeGrazia and I and all the other academics
>>>>> who talk about this concept are all just deluding ourselves and "equal
>>>>> consideration" doesn't really mean anything.
>> Ho hum..
>>
>>>> Until you demonstrate otherwise I tend to think that is the case. Listing
>>>> yourself as among a list of "academics" is not a substitute for a coherent
>>>> explanation. It's the kind of thing you do all the time that just invites
>>>> more derision.
>>> I have given coherent explanations. They don't satisfy you, well,
>>> fine, I don't think the fault lies with the explanations. I may make
>>> some more efforts in that direction if I feel like it. But I don't
>>> think that the fact that the explanations don't satisfy you carries
>>> any particular weight.
>> except that I am the person you're talking to.
>>
>>>>> Somehow or other we've
>>>>> managed to delude ourselves into not seeing the obvious.
>>>> It's either you who are not seeing the obvious or the other 99%, take your
>>>> pick.
>>> Most people haven't considered these issues very carefully. As far as
>>> those who have actually considered them carefully go, a majority of
>>> academic philosophers would agree that these arguments have not
>>> received a satisfactory reply yet.
>> Ho hum, there's those same references to this group of learned
>> philosophers who agree with you..
>>
>
> Yes, that's right. Seems to me like a reasonable enough point to make
> under the circumstances.

It's not a reasonable point, it's not a point at all, it's a bogus
tactic to lend credence to yourself without making a solid argument.

[..]
>>
>>>> I'm not optimistic that that will happen because I don't believe that the
>>>> concept is coherent, therefore it doesn't lend itself to being parsed into
>>>> clear, concise terms.
>>>>>> That's why it's pointless to try to argue reasonably with you. You're as
>>>>>> slippery as an eel in a vat of vaseline.
>>>>> Well, I'm not. You're mistaken, I'm afraid.
>>>> There's that ever-present knee jerk denial again.
>>> It's not knee-jerk denial. You made an unsupported derogatory
>>> statement about it which I don't agree with. Of course I expressed my
>>> disagreement with it.
>> Of course, just like you always do.
>>
>
> Yes. I express my disagreement with you when as far as I am concerned
> you are talking palpable nonsense. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about
> it, it's a considered opinion.

That's how you think of yourself, as an educated, articulate man, but
you don't come across that way. You come across as a dodger, a poseur.
You made your reputation as a math whiz and now you think you can carry
your creds over to advanced philosophy without going through the same
kind of grind. You can't, you need to lay the same kind of groundwork in
philosophy you did in undergraduate mathematics. You're trying to
shortcut, and it shows. You toss around names and theories but you don't
demonstrate any depth of understanding of them. And you never will, as
long as you think you already are an expert.

[..]

>>>> I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I believe that the ideas you have chosen
>>>> to advocate dictate this type of thinking and arguing. You have no choice,
>>>> if you choose to support an incoherent position your arguments must
>>>> necessarily be the same. If the concepts carried the weight of reason and
>>>> truth they would lend themselves to clear articulation with no sophistry,
>>>> name dropping or condescension.
>>> I believe that I have given them clear articulation.
>> Ho hum
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, if I'm invulnerable to reason I suppose you'd better not
>>>>>>> bother. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who's
>>>>>>> invulnerable to reason, is there now?
>>>>>> There's always verbal abuse.
>>>>> Yes, well, if that makes you feel good about yourself you go right
>>>>> ahead.
>>>> I already feel good about myself, verbal abuse just reflects my frustration
>>>> with someone.
>>> Well, it's not a very productive way of expressing your frustration,
>>> is it?
>> Yes, quite often it is quite satisfying.
>>
>
> Seems a bit sad to me.

To derive a bit of satisfaction out of a situation that offers no other
payback?

>> I mean, I occasionally feel moved to verbally abuse you, but
>>
>>> most of the time I just try to reason with you. I don't see any
>>> particular point in taking any other approach, fruitless though it
>>> might be.
>> When it becomes apparent that reason is futile that leaves a limited
>> array of alternatives.
>>
>
> You could always find something better to do, if you really think
> we're immune to reason.

I've thought about it, but you pose an interesting challenge, and I
don't give up on challenges that easily. Occasionally I get a chance to
help someone struggling with "ethical veganism" and that makes it all
worthwhile. I know you think "EV" is a great social movement, but for
many people it's just an eating disorder that keeps them from enjoying
their life. Most often they are not ready to deal with it though. I had
an encounter a week or so ago with a person who was ready to listen, it
was very satisfying to be able to help someone who was reaching out for
help.