Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1001 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>> You're a masochist.
> >>> You think?
> >> We know.

>
> > Who are "we",

>
> Sensible folk. But not you.


Sensible folk who do sensible things like try to critique a
mathematical paper armed with an online dictionary and absolutely no
knowledge of mathematics, and who publicly humiliate themselves by
tossing out childish insults like "whore" and "queer", while deluding
themselves into thinking that they are scoring points and make the
other person seethe with rage as opposed to howl with laughter, and
who challenge people to meet a burden of proof, and then, when the
challenge is met, feign falling asleep, and who make up silly stories
about things like people soliciting *** sex on houseboats or being
destined to be a career telemarketer despite having a Ph.D. in maths,
and then fail to appreciate the irony in their mocking someone for
having a history of mental illness? Those kind of sensible people?
That's what "sensible" is, is it, Ball?

  #1002 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:

>
> >>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>> You know,
> >>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>> Very good.
> >> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.

>
> > can you tell me which

>
> You stupid bitchy little fruit.


Right. So apparently for some reason you thought this attempt at
repartee would be your best shot at a crushing response, as opposed to
proving to me that you have a Ph.D., which you easily could have done
if it were the case. Very interesting.

So, Ball, you're endlessly repeating the meaningless word "fruity"
whereas I'm making cogent meaningful points about what an incredibly
silly clown you are. Am I to take it you think that you're the one
who's got the upper hand, and I'm the one who's being masochistic?

  #1003 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
ges ges is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 26, 1:43 am, 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, 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




no one seems to be able to laugh at themselves.

that's why everyone's an asshole in the first place.


duh.


  #1004 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>> You think?
>>>> We know.
>>> Who are "we",

>> Sensible folk. But not you.

>
> Sensible folk


....but not you.
  #1005 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> You know,
>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
>>>>> Very good.
>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>>> can you tell me which

>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.

>
> Right.


Right.


  #1006 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 7:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:



>>> The argument that individuals should be treated according to the
>>> characteristics typical for their species is a different argument.
>>> That's Carl Cohen's argument. It's not the argument in the essay we've
>>> been talking about.

>> Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about.

>
> Pfffft.
>
>> Cohen says that
>> species itself or "kind" is significant. Wetelesen says that it is the
>> "capabilities" that are significant, not an animal's species per se,

>
> Yes, I know, this is exactly what I said....


No it is not. You claimed that I am referring to characteristics typical
for the species as Cohen does. I am not.

>> and
>> if other species exhibited the abilities then they would be due the same
>> consideration.

>
> Carl Cohen thinks that as well. The point is, Wetelesen accepts moral
> individualism, Carl Cohen denies it. You're obviously not clear on
> that distinction.


Cite where Wetlesen mentions moral individualism.

> If you want to go with an approach that denies moral individualism,
> that's fine, but it's not consistent with the approach taken in this
> essay.


I don't, that's a strawman.

>> He even mentions that other species already deserve the
>> benefit of the doubt. The irony is that you claim to deny this approach,
>> yet your own approach of "relevantly similar" appears to be basically
>> the same thing.
>>

>
> My approach accepts moral individualism, like Wetelesen's.


Show where he uses that term.

However,
> unlike Wetelesen, I deny that there is any set of characteristics
> common to all humans with a brain which no nonhumans have. Hence I
> accept the argument from marginal cases.


This is a false argument by abuse of the absolute word "all". There is
no characteristic of *any* species that is exhibited by ALL members of
that species, therefore the requirement is unsound. What there ARE are
limitations within species which apply to ALL members of those species.


>>> That essay thinks that it can identify some
>>> characteristics that almost all human individuals have but no nonhuman
>>> animals have. That may be, but we haven't been given an adequate
>>> explanation of what those characteristics are yet.

>> Yes you have, you're blind as a bat. I have repeated them a half dozen
>> times in this very post.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> The same sense that baby eagles have the inherent ability to soar
>>>>>> hundreds of feet above the ground detect the slightest movement of a
>>>>>> mouse in the grass below. These are species-specific inherent capabilities.
>>>>> Most eagles will develop the abilities you are talking about, and
>>>>> there are various causal mechanisms for that. However, some baby
>>>>> eagles will never develop such abilities, for various reasons, and to
>>>>> get clear about whether these baby eagles still have the "capability"
>>>>> to do it we need to get clear about what that *means*.
>>>> They are assumed to have the capabilities specific to their species, and
>>>> barring some birth deformity, accident, disease or other unusual event,
>>>> they will.
>>> And why is that, exactly? Is it because the capability consists in
>>> having certain types of genetic information in your cells, or some
>>> such thing? Just try to give an explanation of what having the
>>> capability actually consists in.

>> It consists of having the capabilities, that's all. Why can planes fly?
>> Why can birds fly? Why can humans reason? It's in their nature because
>> of the way they evolved.

>
> This is all just babble. I can reason because of the structure of my
> brain. Infants can't because their brain hasn't developed all that
> structure yet, though there is some structure in common. You're saying
> that the infant still somehow has the "capability" to reason.
> Presumably you'd also say a broken plane still has the "capability" to
> fly if it is some structure in common with a functioning plane, even
> though it has some structural defects which prevent it from flying.
> You've got to specify how much of the structure needs to be present.
> This is why it's a matter for scientific investigation, not common
> sense. It's a promissory note on a scientific research programme,
> nothing more.
>
>> The key is that we are able to recognize which
>> beings have which capabilities because we know about them from
>> experience, and experience tells us that certain species have certain
>> capabilities and not others.
>>

>
> How? How does it tell us this?


Ten thousand generations of human beings tells us.

> How does experience tell me that an
> infant has the capability for reason? I don't even know what that
> means. Does a fetus have the capability for reason?


Yes, of course.

> A zygote? A sperm-
> egg pair?


Yes.

> What about humans who will never develop cognitive
> capacities beyond that of a dog?


No, but a rare aberration in development does not invalidate a general
rule that works 99.999% of the time.. Nonetheless, other reasons exist
to extend consideration to marginal humans.

> What makes it reasonable to say that
> they have the "capability" for reason


> We may not know at an early state that they are impaired, but it's

not reasonable to formulate a rule by a rare exception.

> but a dog doesn't?


We know enough about dogs that we can form an extremely accurate opinion
about their capabilities, and it has nothing to do with impaired humans.

> Where is this
> capability, in the genes, in the neural structure? How can this be
> something that I can just observe from "everyday experience", as
> opposed to a scientific hypothesis that needs to be substantiated by
> research?


What more research do you require beyond ten thousand generations of
humans born with the capability of reason, and countless generations of
non-humans without it?

> There's nothing in my everyday experience that tells me that a
> permanently radically cognitively impaired human has any
> "capabilities" that a nonhuman animal doesn't.


Wetlesen deals with this objection on pages 20-21

"This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases
of marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents
and will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded.
Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability is still
there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an equal
moral status value to them. If this justification is not accepted,
however, it does not necessarily follow that they have no moral status
value at all. They may have a gradual moral status value, depending on
the argument which we shall discuss below. As for those who are borne
without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to
all moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and
egalitarian. If this way of understanding the relation between moral
persons and moral agents works, there will be no need to distinguish
Agent's Rights and Human Rights the way Warren does. They will be
grounded in the same internal property of moral persons, and there will
be no need for a supplementary justification based on an external
relation such as membership in a human society.
The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
moral status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its
absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying
moral status to them."


> There's nothing in
> accepted science that tells me that either. Unless "capabilities" is a
> code-word for "what's typical of the species". In that case, I don't
> think you should confuse the issue by using the word "capabilities",
> and I also think you're misinterpreting Wetelesen, I think you're
> presenting Carl Cohen's argument using his words, mistakenly thinking
> that it's his.


No "capabilities" is exactly what it says, the fact that it, like
everything else in life, is not 100% verifiable does not alter the fact
that it is real.

A plane has a value of millions of dollars based on the educated
assumption that it has the capability to fly us to our destination. A
bus is valued far lower because we know it has no such capability. We
are willing to risk our lives on the surety on our first assumption,
even though it is not 100% verifiable, nothing is. We CAN however be
100% sure that the lower valued bus will NEVER fly us to our destination.


>>>> Those that do NOT possess the capabilities of their species
>>>> due to one of these unfortunate eventualities are anomalous, they don't
>>>> provide a basis to discard the rule which governs the species.
>>> The author of that essay accepts moral individualism, which says that
>>> individuals should be judged on the basis of their characteristics as
>>> individuals, not on the basis of the characteristics of their species.

>> That's fine, that term is not found in the essay, however we are judging
>> individuals based on their individual capabilities,

>
> Yes,


Are you conceding that the term "moral indivudualism" is NOT used in
Wetlesen's essay?

> whereas Cohen does not. This is the point I was making earlier
> when you said I didn't know what I was talking about.


You said that I was repeating Cohen's argument, you were wrong, I am
not. Cohen refers to "kind" as being the morally significant factor,
although I agree that is a strong component, I am agreeing with Wetlesen
that it is "capability" that is the key issue, and "kind" is secondary,
primarily a way of ascertaining capability, or lack of.


>
>> and discovering what
>> those capabilities are by referring to their species.

>
> But why is species membership by itself a sufficient basis on which to
> make the judgement?


How do you determine which of these vehicles can fly, a plane, a car, or
a bicycle? Do you examine each one and test it in a lab? Is it not
sufficient to be aware that the capabilities and limitations of each is
already known from past experience?

Should we assume that every chicken will potentially be the first one to
reason and talk? Isn't it more sound to assume that chickens can't
reason and talk? Do we need "research" to prove what we already know? Why?

I can't think of a plausible account of anything
> that should reasonably be called "capability" on which species
> membership alone would be enough to make the judgement. I mean, you
> might be saying, having the right DNA is enough, and we are justified
> in assuming that members of the same species have the right DNA. It's
> a pretty bizarre interpretion of "capability" if having the right DNA
> is enough. I really don't see what's the big deal about having the
> right DNA. And what about a Tay-Sachs infant? You might say, that's
> just an inessential variation on the right DNA, they've still got
> enough of the right DNA to have the "capabilities" in question. That's
> a scientific hypothesis that has to be verified by research, not
> something that can just be observed from everyday experience.
>
>> Just like we board
>> a plane when we want to fly, not a bus. We know by experience what the
>> capabilities of each are.
>>

>
> Yes, but if I find out that the plane is still being built, or that it
> has serious structural defects in its engine which prevent it from
> flying, I usually conclude that it didn't have the capabilities I was
> after. How close to a functioning plane is "good enough"? What if all
> the parts of the plane are lying disassembled on the floor, is the
> capability still there? If I start to put them back together again, at
> what point does the capability re-emerge? I have no idea how to go
> about answering such questions, because I've been given no real clue
> as to what having the "capability" amounts to.


You're deliberately making it difficult when it's not at all. Capability
is exactly and literally what it says, nothing more or less. We deduce
from billions of examples what it is and what it isn't, depending on the
species. We know when a human is born that it will NOT be able to fly,
even though that is not 100% verifiable until the human grows to
maturity and tries to leap off a building.

>>> In this respect, the author of that essay and I are in agreement. So
>>> if the rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases is to succeed, he
>>> must show that all humans (except perhaps those without brains) have
>>> the "capabilities" in question. He would certainly accept this. Now, I
>>> don't know how we would go about deciding which marginal humans have
>>> the capabilities in question.

>> They all do. Marginal humans have the capabilities, but the capabilities
>> are hampered by a disability so the operative abilities do not all
>> develop.

>
> What do you *mean* by this? I don't see how you could justify this
> claim without giving some sort of account of exactly what went wrong
> with their brain development. I don't see how the claim can be made
> sense of without being tied to theories of brain development which are
> a matter for scientific research, not everyday observation.


We don't NEED to understand brain development to know that humans can
reason and talk and eagles can fly. Eons of experience are the best
scientific research you could ever want.

>
>> Since all humans by their inherent nature have the
>> capabilities, and no other species has them,

>
> Well, it's very easy to say that. You apparently think this is
> something that we can all immediately observe from everyday
> experience. I have no idea what it means.


You should, it's very, very simple.

You know Popper's
> falsifiability criterion? For a hypothesis to say anything, it has to
> be capable of being falsified. What future observations would lead you
> to conculde that you were wrong about this? In particular, what future
> observation would lead you to say "I was wrong, this human doesn't
> have the capability in question"?


I would refer you to this quote," Popper discussed this critique of
naïve falsificationism in Chapters 3 & 4 of The Logic of Scientific
Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of
'natural selection'. Theories that say more about the way things appear
are to be preferred over those that do not; the more generally
applicable a theory is, the greater its value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

This seems quite apt in this discussion. Wetlesen's thesis of moral
personhood based on capabilities says more about the way things appear
than the argument from marginal cases, which leaves us more or less in a
conundrum about how we should act. It doesn't describe how we act or
our intuition, and it can't even be expressed without esoteric lingo.

>> then deciding by species is
>> the only reasonable way to accomplish the task. We could interview every
>> chicken, mouse and cockroach, but that would be time consuming and we we
>> know already what the outcome will be.
>>
>> > This is because I don't understand what

>>
>>> having the capabilities in question consists in, I haven't been told.

>> It consists in having them, and the way we know if an individual *might*
>> have them is by checking to see if the individual belongs to a species
>> that has had ONE member which has exhibited them at least once in all of
>> recorded history.

>
> As I say, I think this is a misinterpretation of Wetelesen. You seem
> to be saying if one conspecific has the abilities, that is sufficient
> for the capability to be present.


It is sufficient to assume that others may, and to give them the benefit
of the doubt. In other words, if *one_single* chimpanzee exhibited the
capabilities, that would be sufficient to create an exception for the
entire species..

If no bus EVER flies, we can safely assume that no bus will, that buses
can't fly.

> I think that it is ridiculous to
> call such a property a "capability" and I'm sure that's not what
> Wetelesen means.


If I understand you correctly that is exactly what he means.

> Do you have the capability to understand the proof of
> the independence of the continuum hypothesis, because I have the
> ability to understand it?


Yes, absolutely. Of course some concepts may be just too complex for
some individuals, but in general they possess the "kind" of cognitive
abilities necessary.

> This is more like Carl Cohen's argument,
> although I'm not sure he would regard one conspecific having the
> abilities as being enough, he might want a majority of them to have
> the abilities.


If one chimp started talking, that would immediately change our outlook
on chimps, ALL of them.

>> If so, then he does, if not, then he does not. It is
>> pure scientific reasoning. Lo and behold, aside from the occasional
>> malfunction, the operative abilities manifest or do not manifest, as the
>> case may be, every time. And no anomaly ever gives a non-human the
>> abilities. When that happens we will be forced to re-think.
>>

>
> Is it an a priori truth that all members of a given species have the
> same capabilities?


They have the same "kind" of capabilities, not to exactly the same
degree. Some chimps are stronger than others, but all have great strength.

> Or is that a hypothesis that we check by
> investigation? If so, how would we go about verifying it? Why are you
> so sure that it's true, how can you know?


The investigation has been going on for thousands of years. We already
know the capabilities and limitations of different animals, and those
are accurately delineated by knowing the species they belong to.

The major flaw in the argument from marginal cases is that it cannot
deal with the complete inability of any non-human to exhibit the kinds
of advanced cognitive functions that normal humans do.

It relies on comparing healthy animals with severely brain damaged
humans. Besides the fact that this is a fundamentally skewed approach,
there are any number of reasonable explanations why such humans are
accorded special status, based on faint hope, emotional attachments,
fear, religious beliefs etc. etc..

  #1007 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
>>>> addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
>>>> You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
>>>> an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
>>>> because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
>>>> utter and complete fraud.
>>> You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
>>> unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
>>> author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
>>> making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
>>> criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.

>> And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
>> own competence.
>>
>>> That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
>>> I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
>>> you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
>>> anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
>>> that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
>>> I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
>>> forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
>>> them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
>>> You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
>>> up like Ball.

>> I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
>> rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
>> discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
>> up on you.

>
> Well, that would be great.
>


He replied as follows below.. no doubt you will find it to be
inadequate, I do not.

Dear Dutch,

Thank you for contacting me. It is quite some time since I have worked on
those questions now, and I don't think that I will take part in the
discussion. But I believe that the distinction between capability and
ability is good enough, even if there might be cases of doubt in the
overlapping sones. I would be very grateful if you would argue the case.
It seems clear enough that normally a human child has certain capablities
that most other animals lack, such as the ability of using language to
state a proposition or make a decision and argue for it, and to follow it
up in action. Those who are brain damaged or in perpetual coma may or may
not have this capability. I don't argue that we know they do have it, but
that it seems reasonable to give them the benefit of doubt. But I am sure
you can do this better than me. Anyway, good luck!

Jon
  #1008 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>> You think?
> >>>> We know.
> >>> Who are "we",
> >> Sensible folk. But not you.

>
> > Sensible folk

>
> ...but not you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Tell us more about how sensible people view the world, Ball. We crave
your wisdom.

  #1009 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 27, 2:38 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.

>
> Another knee-jerk denial


More inane babbling. For some reason you think that, when you talk
nonsense and I point out that it is nonsense, you can score a point by
calling it "knee-jerk denial". Ah, well. As long as it keeps you
amused.

  #1010 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jun 19, 1:29 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > On Jun 18, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> [..]

>
> >> >> >> >> > 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?

>
> >> >> >> > Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.

>
> >> >> >> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it is
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time. My
> >> >> >> interest
> >> >> >> in consuming chicken wins.

>
> >> >> > Well, Peter Singer would not be in unqualified agreement with you.
> >> >> > He
> >> >> > has a discussion of this in Chapter 5 of "Practical Ethics". Please
> >> >> > don't whinge about my referring to books. We are discussing Peter
> >> >> > Singer's views here, not my own. If you want to understand what
> >> >> > those
> >> >> > views are, you should read what he wrote.

>
> >> >> I don't, I asked YOU.

>
> >> > I don't think you're justified in killing a chicken just because you
> >> > feel hungry, when other nutritious food is available.

>
> >> I have some questions about that..

>
> >> Why should I not choose the chicken if that is what satisfies me? Nobody,
> >> including you, is choosing the path of least harm.

>
> > We're not talking about my views here, we're talking about Peter
> > Singer's. I have discussed the issue of collateral deaths with him by
> > email and he replied "I'm a consequentialist, so I think you should
> > minimize harm - but if the costs of avoiding a harm become too high
> > (including opportunity costs which prevent you from doing other good
> > things) - then you are justified in causing the harm." He means that
> > growing all your own food would entail sacrificing opportunities to
> > alleviate suffering in other ways, such as donating money to charity
> > or engaging in political activism.

>
> > I did not start this discussion of preference utilitarianism for the
> > purposes of defending it or suggesting that anyone fully puts it into
> > practice. My intention was to explain to you what the theory says, and
> > hopefully then go on to discuss other ethical frameworks, in order to
> > illustrate the concept of equal consideration.

>
> > Preference utilitarianism is one theory that is consistent with equal
> > consideration, there are many others. There may be good criticisms of
> > preference utilitarianism, such as that it ignores constraints or is
> > unrealistically demanding. It is a contentious issue whether an
> > adequate moral theory must not be unrealistically demanding.

>
> >> How is your particular compromise between animal suffering and personal
> >> convenience imposable onto me?

>
> > That's a different issue. I have never made any comment about your
> > lifestyle. I have some views regarding the limits as to what is
> > morally acceptable, as do you. I don't spend much time trying to
> > change the minds of people who disagree with me. I do make some
> > efforts to encourage people to change their consumption habits for the
> > better and I also publicly defend my views when they come under
> > attack.

>
> >> How do you even know that the calories I would substitute for the chicken
> >> would equate to less animal harm than the chicken?

>
> > There might be reasonable debate about that, perhaps.

>
> >> >> >> >> > 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?

>
> >> >> >> > It means similar in all morally relevant respects.

>
> >> >> >> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are used
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> phrase being defined.

>
> >> >> > See my reply to Ball.

>
> >> >> No, give me a real definition.

>
> >> > The notion of moral relevance is fundamental, it hasn't got a
> >> > definition. You yourself used it when you said that race and year of
> >> > birth were not morally relevant but the cognitive capacities
> >> > correlated with species were.

>
> >> I didn't ask for a definition of moral relevance, I asked for a
> >> definition
> >> of the phrase "relevantly similar". You use the phrase constantly, in
> >> fact
> >> it seems fundamental to your argument, yet I have never heard of the term
> >> in
> >> my life and can make no sense of it.

>
> > It means "similar in all morally relevant respects". I was assuming
> > the phrase "morally relevant" was what you were having trouble
> > understanding.

>
> >> >> >> > The issue is who
> >> >> >> > has the most at stake.

>
> >> >> >> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense then
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation.
> >> >> >> Therefore
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how its
> >> >> >> weighted.

>
> >> >> > What Peter Singer advocates is equal consideration.

>
> >> >> No it isn't.

>
> >> > Sigh. You admit that you don't understand the concept. So maybe you
> >> > should pay attention to my attempts to explain it to you, rather than
> >> > decide for yourself whether it applies.

>
> >> You don't understand it either. You think that "it has a nice ring to it"
> >> equals understanding.

>
> > No, that's just your ignorant view of the matter. You're convinced
> > that just because you don't understand it, no-one else could either.

>
> >> DeGrazia himself in the first chapter of his book
> >> admits he doesn't really understand it.

>
> > No, that is not true.

>
> >> He spends the entire book trying to
> >> show why others ought to be obliged to disprove a concept he created
> >> which
> >> makes no sense.

>
> > He spends Chapter 3 trying to establish a rebuttable presumption in
> > favour of equal consideration and spends the rest of the book
> > discussing what that amounts to. You've never offered any respectable
> > critique of Chapter 3. DeGrazia is a respected academic philosopher
> > and by your own admission you're not all that well-read in philosophy.
> > You're basically saying that academic standards in philosophy are
> > shoddy and that you can see this but other respected academic
> > philosophers can't. You've been saying this from day one, and yet you
> > call me arrogant. You say you're open the possibility that some
> > academic philosophers might have something to teach you, but I think
> > there are grounds for doubting this. Shouldn't you perhaps be a bit
> > more open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

>
> >> >> >> >> > Preference utilitarianism is

>
> >> >> >> >> > consistent with equal consideration because it weighs the
> >> >> >> >> > relevantly
> >> >> >> >> > similar interests of any two sentient beings equally,
> >> >> >> >> > regardless
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > species.

>
> >> >> >> >> Chickens want to live, I want to eat chicken. Who wins?

>
> >> >> >> > It depends on who has more at stake.

>
> >> >> >> Who wins, me or the chicken? I want your opinion.

>
> >> >> > I'm not a preference utilitarian. If I were, I wouldn't think it
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > because you felt hungry, no.

>
> >> >> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
> >> >> than
> >> >> the
> >> >> life of a marginally sentient one?

>
> >> > Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.

>
> >> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?

>
> > Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
> > utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
> > been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
> > to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
> > needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.

>
> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.


What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?

> And that also
> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
> which you might prefer I eat.


Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?

> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
>


Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
business.


> >> >> > When the chicken was brought into
> >> >> > existence because of your desire to eat it, the issue is more
> >> >> > complex.

>
> >> >> Do tell.

>
> >> > According to Peter Singer, anyway. He thinks that you may be justified
> >> > in bringing a being who does not have a concept of itself as a subject
> >> > existing over time and then killing it painlessly, assuming you
> >> > couldn't bring it into existence without prematurely killing it.
> >> > However in "Practical Ethics" he suggests it may be best to have a
> >> > general rule of thumb not to kill animals for food, because the
> >> > temptation to ignore their important interests when we use them for
> >> > economic purposes would be too great.

>
> >> Good for him. Do you always let authors do your thinking for you?

>
> > No, I never do that, you patronizing twit, I always think critically
> > about the ideas I study and I think there are plenty of good
> > criticisms to be made of preference utilitarianism, although I do
> > think it is a theory worth taking seriously. The purpose of the
> > exercise was to explain to you what preference utilitarianism says for
> > the purpose of illustrating the concept of equal consideration, not to
> > evaluate preference utilitarianism. The best way to explain what equal
> > consideration is is to discuss different versions of different ethical
> > frameworks that have been considered in the literature and show which
> > of them are consistent with equal consideration and which aren't,
> > thereby illustrating the concept. I was starting this process by
> > trying to explain to you just one version of one ethical framework
> > which is consistent with equal consideration. We didn't get very far.

>
> Maybe you could simply start talking to me person to person, adult to adult,


I did.

> instead of trying to talk like a professor lecturing his freshman class.
>


I talked to you like someone trying to explain an idea that he was
interested in. If you find that offensive, why don't you go and find
something else to do?

>
>
> >> Something
> >> happened to your mind in all those years of studying math theory.

>
> > I don't think so. One of the habits you learn when studying maths is
> > never to accept anything without proof.

>
> You have accepted the presumption of equal consideration without a shred.
>


I find DeGrazia's argument on the subject persuasive. I don't think
you've made a particularly serious effort at considering the argument.

> [..]
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > Yeah, you're right, complex issues are raised in actually
> >> >> >> > applying
> >> >> >> > preference utilitarianism, and it may not be absolutely clear
> >> >> >> > what
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > actually entails about our situation. You want to argue about
> >> >> >> > this,
> >> >> >> > maybe you should thrash it out with Peter Singer. I'm just
> >> >> >> > presenting
> >> >> >> > it to you as an example.

>
> >> >> >> You're the one who claimed that preference utilitarianism is
> >> >> >> consistent
> >> >> >> wih
> >> >> >> equal consideration. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

>
> >> >> > It gives equal weight to the relevantly similar interests of all
> >> >> > sentient beings.

>
> >> >> You don't have the slightest idea do you? You just type catch-phrases
> >> >> and
> >> >> expect people to stand in awe of your intellect.

>
> >> > No, I don't. I don't think this concept is particularly hard to
> >> > understand, and I think I'm giving a good explanation of it. If the
> >> > explanation I give is not clear, then we can illustrate it by
> >> > considering specifical ethical frameworks, which is what I've been
> >> > trying to do. But you haven't been very good at listening.

>
> >> You're a fraud. You can't even explain what "relevantly similar" means.

>
> > I've been trying. I don't think it's such a hard concept to
> > understand, but you apparently are having problems. You're right that
> > there are no clear-cut rules for determining whether a given
> > difference is morally relevant, but some claims about what is morally
> > relevant are not very plausible and call for some justification before
> > they should be accepted. Or so most students of the subject think it
> > reasonable to believe, anyway. I mean, are you suggesting that we
> > shouldn't accept any ethical argument until we have absolutely clear-
> > cut criteria for which ethical arguments are acceptable, as in
> > mathematics? Ethics isn't like mathematics.

>
> I told you before, I am not talking about "morally relevant", that I
> understand, I am talking about "relevantly similar", what does that phrase
> mean?


It means "similar in all the morally relevant respects". Hence it is
defined in terms of "morally relevant". I believe I might have
mentioned that before.

> I have been using the English language for a long time and I have
> never heard the phrase. It has no obvious meaning to me.


I would have thought that someone who had used the English language
for so long ought to be able to form some idea of what it means.

> I am also saying
> you should not wrap your beliefs in terminology that has no clear meaning,
> it's a recipe for confusion. Unless confusion is your goal..
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> > Then we should err on the side of caution in the case of nonhuman
> >> >> > animals as well.

>
> >> >> Why? There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the animals we
> >> >> use
> >> >> for food possess any higher cognitive abilities.

>
> >> > Same amount of evidence as there is with cognitively impaired humans.

>
> >> False, there is every reason to believe that cognitively impaired humans
> >> have rich inner lives.

>
> > *All* cognitively impaired humans have much richer inner lives than
> > any nonhuman animal? What, exactly, is the evidence for that?

>
> It's not necessary to take it to the extreme, there only needs to be the
> possibility.
>


Well, anything's possible. It's possible that there are blue aliens on
Alpha Centauri. You didn't just say it was possible before, you said
there's every reason to believe it, I don't see the slightest reason
to believe it. You are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

> >> >> On the other hand, it is
> >> >> very plausible that even impaired humans still do possess such
> >> >> abilities,
> >> >> even in some hidden form.

>
> >> > The conjecture is equally plausible in both cases.

>
> >> No, because no healthy non-human has ever demonstrated human-like
> >> cognitive
> >> powers. It's not plausible to assume that they do.

>
> > The same could be said about plenty of cognitively impaired humans.

>
> You haven't read the essay have you?
>


Yes, I have.

> > You're asserting that a fundamental divide exists between *all* humans
> > and *all* nonhumans, I simply don't see any good evidence for that
> > claim. You're welcome to provide me with some.

>
> I did, you refuse to read it. You can spend hours typing long paragraphs
> about you're being unjustly accused of hypocrisy and being a stuffed shirt
> but I gave you one essay to read and you won't go near it. You recommended a
> book and I went to the trouble of getting it from the Public Library and at
> least attemped to read it..
>
> [..]





  #1011 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 6:11 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
> >>>> addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
> >>>> You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
> >>>> an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
> >>>> because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
> >>>> utter and complete fraud.
> >>> You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
> >>> unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
> >>> author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
> >>> making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
> >>> criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.
> >> And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
> >> own competence.

>
> >>> That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
> >>> I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
> >>> you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
> >>> anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
> >>> that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
> >>> I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
> >>> forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
> >>> them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
> >>> You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
> >>> up like Ball.
> >> I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
> >> rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
> >> discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
> >> up on you.

>
> > Well, that would be great.

>
> He replied as follows below.. no doubt you will find it to be
> inadequate, I do not.
>
> Dear Dutch,
>
> Thank you for contacting me. It is quite some time since I have worked on
> those questions now, and I don't think that I will take part in the
> discussion. But I believe that the distinction between capability and
> ability is good enough, even if there might be cases of doubt in the
> overlapping sones. I would be very grateful if you would argue the case.
> It seems clear enough that normally a human child has certain capablities
> that most other animals lack, such as the ability of using language to
> state a proposition or make a decision and argue for it, and to follow it
> up in action. Those who are brain damaged or in perpetual coma may or may
> not have this capability. I don't argue that we know they do have it, but
> that it seems reasonable to give them the benefit of doubt. But I am sure
> you can do this better than me. Anyway, good luck!
>
> Jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Well, in order to be adequate or inadequate it would have to be an
actual attempt to argue the case, which it isn't. He seems to be happy
to entrust that job to you, which is certainly very interesting.

He writes

"I believe that the distinction between capability and
ability is good enough"

Well, that's wonderful, but I would like to know what the distinction
is. There's no significant distinction between "capability" and
"ability" in ordinary language. He's introducing a technical term,
he's got an obligation to define it.

"It seems clear enough that normally a human child has certain
capablities
that most other animals lack, such as the ability of using language to
state a proposition or make a decision and argue for it, and to follow
it
up in action."

On the ordinary understanding of "capability", which is the same as
the ordinary understanding of "ability": if the child is three or
older, sure. That's one interpretation of the statement on which it's
very plausible, and he seems to want to borrow the plausibility of
this interpretation. But on the interpretation which he's actually
committed to, in my view it's not plausible at all, certainly not
adequately argued. He's introduced a technical usage of "capability"
which is distinct from the ordinary usage of "ability", on which a
neonate is supposed to have the capability, but not the ability, to do
these things. Is that "clear enough"? Well, I don't think it's clear
at all. I think any reasonably intellectually honest person, when
confronted with such a statement, would start by asking "What is the
distinction between capability and ability"? As far as I'm concerned,
I've been given no adequate answer to this question. There certainly
isn't an adequate answer in this reply from Jon Wetlesen you've just
quoted.

And apparently there is a reason to give radically cognitively
impaired humans the "benefit of the doubt" which doesn't apply to
nonhuman animals. So, what is this reason?

The bottom line is that as far as I'm concerned I've been given
nothing resembling an adequate explanation of what the distinction
between capability and ability is, and without some understanding of
what the distinction is we can't get started. There's no such
distinction in standard usage, it's technical terminology, so what is
the distinction? You certainly can't pretend there was any attempt to
explain the distinction in what you just quoted from Wetlesen.

Just in case you're interested, I emailed Peter Singer about this, and
he made the following remark:

"This claim....

'it appears that all three of them have based their
arguments on the assumption that the concepts of a moral person and a
moral agent are synonymous or equivalent.'

....is simply false, for me anyway. I make no such assumption, and I
doubt that I've ever written anything suggesting it."

And now that he mentions it, it does seem rather odd to suggest that
the assumption that a moral person is the same as a moral agent plays
a crucial role in Singer's argument. I really can't imagine why he
would think that. But I guess that's a side issue.

Anyway, for what it's worth, Singer found the distinction between
capability and ability just as obscure as I do.

  #1012 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>> We know.
>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>> Sensible folk

>> ...but not you.

>
> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world


Go back and read my posts.
  #1013 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 7:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>> The argument that individuals should be treated according to the
> >>> characteristics typical for their species is a different argument.
> >>> That's Carl Cohen's argument. It's not the argument in the essay we've
> >>> been talking about.
> >> Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about.

>
> > Pfffft.

>
> >> Cohen says that
> >> species itself or "kind" is significant. Wetelesen says that it is the
> >> "capabilities" that are significant, not an animal's species per se,

>
> > Yes, I know, this is exactly what I said....

>
> No it is not. You claimed that I am referring to characteristics typical
> for the species as Cohen does. I am not.
>


Make up your mind about what you're objecting to. I said that Cohen's
argument is not the same as the argument in the essay, which is
undeniable, and you objected to this. Now you've abandoned that
objection and instead you're objecting to my claim that what you're
saying is really just another form of Cohen's argument. You really
seem to be quite confused. Fine, so if it's not just another version
of the argument from species normality, then what is it? Apparently,
if just one conspecific of an individual has the requisite abilities,
then the individual has the requisite capabilities. What definition of
"capability" is going to give you that result?

> >> and
> >> if other species exhibited the abilities then they would be due the same
> >> consideration.

>
> > Carl Cohen thinks that as well. The point is, Wetelesen accepts moral
> > individualism, Carl Cohen denies it. You're obviously not clear on
> > that distinction.

>
> Cite where Wetlesen mentions moral individualism.
>


He doesn't use the term "moral individualism". If you like, I can
point you to a different essay with a definition of the term, then I
can justify my contention that Wetlesen accepts moral individualism,
so defined, by means of citations. I can't be bothered right now.

> > If you want to go with an approach that denies moral individualism,
> > that's fine, but it's not consistent with the approach taken in this
> > essay.

>
> I don't, that's a strawman.
>


I have a hard time reconciling the contention that one conspecific
having the requisite abilities would be enough with moral
individualism. Enlighten me. What would knowledge about the
characteristics of one conspecific of an individual enable us to
conclude about the characteristics of this particular individual? I'm
one of your conspecifics, I understand set theory and enjoy watching
"Doctor Who", does that tell us anything much about you? Not a lot, as
far as I can see.


> >> He even mentions that other species already deserve the
> >> benefit of the doubt. The irony is that you claim to deny this approach,
> >> yet your own approach of "relevantly similar" appears to be basically
> >> the same thing.

>
> > My approach accepts moral individualism, like Wetelesen's.

>
> Show where he uses that term.
>


See above.

> However,
>
> > unlike Wetelesen, I deny that there is any set of characteristics
> > common to all humans with a brain which no nonhumans have. Hence I
> > accept the argument from marginal cases.

>
> This is a false argument by abuse of the absolute word "all". There is
> no characteristic of *any* species that is exhibited by ALL members of
> that species,


Quite. So you have to judge on the basis of individual
characteristics. That's what moral individualism says, and I thought
you were saying you too accepted moral individualism. Which means you
either have to grant nonhuman animals full moral status, give
radically cognitively impaired humans lesser moral status, or find a
morally relevant difference between nonhuman animals and radically
cognitively impaired humans. Wetlesen attempts to do the last, my
whole point has been that you and he have not yet given us enough
reason to think that he has succeeded.

> therefore the requirement is unsound. What there ARE are
> limitations within species which apply to ALL members of those species.
>


So "limitations" are not "characteristics"? I'm afraid I'm lost here.

> >>> That essay thinks that it can identify some
> >>> characteristics that almost all human individuals have but no nonhuman
> >>> animals have. That may be, but we haven't been given an adequate
> >>> explanation of what those characteristics are yet.
> >> Yes you have, you're blind as a bat. I have repeated them a half dozen
> >> times in this very post.

>
> >>>>>> The same sense that baby eagles have the inherent ability to soar
> >>>>>> hundreds of feet above the ground detect the slightest movement of a
> >>>>>> mouse in the grass below. These are species-specific inherent capabilities.
> >>>>> Most eagles will develop the abilities you are talking about, and
> >>>>> there are various causal mechanisms for that. However, some baby
> >>>>> eagles will never develop such abilities, for various reasons, and to
> >>>>> get clear about whether these baby eagles still have the "capability"
> >>>>> to do it we need to get clear about what that *means*.
> >>>> They are assumed to have the capabilities specific to their species, and
> >>>> barring some birth deformity, accident, disease or other unusual event,
> >>>> they will.
> >>> And why is that, exactly? Is it because the capability consists in
> >>> having certain types of genetic information in your cells, or some
> >>> such thing? Just try to give an explanation of what having the
> >>> capability actually consists in.
> >> It consists of having the capabilities, that's all. Why can planes fly?
> >> Why can birds fly? Why can humans reason? It's in their nature because
> >> of the way they evolved.

>
> > This is all just babble. I can reason because of the structure of my
> > brain. Infants can't because their brain hasn't developed all that
> > structure yet, though there is some structure in common. You're saying
> > that the infant still somehow has the "capability" to reason.
> > Presumably you'd also say a broken plane still has the "capability" to
> > fly if it is some structure in common with a functioning plane, even
> > though it has some structural defects which prevent it from flying.
> > You've got to specify how much of the structure needs to be present.
> > This is why it's a matter for scientific investigation, not common
> > sense. It's a promissory note on a scientific research programme,
> > nothing more.

>
> >> The key is that we are able to recognize which
> >> beings have which capabilities because we know about them from
> >> experience, and experience tells us that certain species have certain
> >> capabilities and not others.

>
> > How? How does it tell us this?

>
> Ten thousand generations of human beings tells us.
>


That tells me that all humans with a brain have these capabilities?
How?

> > How does experience tell me that an

>
> > infant has the capability for reason? I don't even know what that
> > means. Does a fetus have the capability for reason?

>
> Yes, of course.
>


You know, I'd be interested in knowing whether Jon Wetlesen would
agree with you on that point. Maybe you could ask him.

So, anyway, to address what you say: a fetus has the capability for
reason, that's obvious, is it? I don't think that any reasonable
person would accept that it's obvious on any reasonable interpretation
of those words. It's obvious that we have a capability for reason
before there is organized electrical activity in the cerebral cortex?
You really think anyone else is going to swallow that?

> > A zygote? A sperm-
> > egg pair?

>
> Yes.
>


As I say, I would really be interested in knowing if Jon Wetlesen
would agree with you. So, anyway, I've seen someone on the Internet
argue that human life begins at gametogenesis before, he derived some
interesting consequences from that view. The egg in the sperm-egg pair
that became me first came into existence while my mother was in my
grandmother's womb, back in 1955. The sperm came into existence a
short while before I was conceived. So when that happened, there were
a sperm and an egg, existing in two separate bodies. And the pair
comprised by these two entities, if I understand you aright, had just
as much capability for reason, and just as much moral status, as you
or I. Do I have that right?

> > What about humans who will never develop cognitive

>
> > capacities beyond that of a dog?

>
> No,


Then there's no rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases.

> but a rare aberration in development does not invalidate a general
> rule that works 99.999% of the time.. Nonetheless, other reasons exist
> to extend consideration to marginal humans.
>


So we need to be told what those reasons are, and only then will the
rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases begin.

> > What makes it reasonable to say that
> > they have the "capability" for reason

>
> > We may not know at an early state that they are impaired, but it's

> not reasonable to formulate a rule by a rare exception.
>


You've said you accept moral individualism. So the moral status of a
being is determined by its individual characteristics. You either have
to deny full moral status to a radically cognitively impaired human,
grant full moral status to a nonhuman animal, or identify a morally
relevant difference between the two. You now seem to be conceding that
Wetlesen hasn't actually succeeded in doing the last one.

> > but a dog doesn't?

>
> We know enough about dogs that we can form an extremely accurate opinion
> about their capabilities, and it has nothing to do with impaired humans.
>


Why can't I form just as accurate an opinion about the capabilities
(whatever the hell "capabilities" are, I guess that's the problem) of
a radically cognitively impaired human?

> > Where is this

>
> > capability, in the genes, in the neural structure? How can this be
> > something that I can just observe from "everyday experience", as
> > opposed to a scientific hypothesis that needs to be substantiated by
> > research?

>
> What more research do you require beyond ten thousand generations of
> humans born with the capability of reason, and countless generations of
> non-humans without it?
>


How does this tell me anything about the capabilities of marginal
humans, which is what we are talking about?

> > There's nothing in my everyday experience that tells me that a
> > permanently radically cognitively impaired human has any
> > "capabilities" that a nonhuman animal doesn't.

>
> Wetlesen deals with this objection on pages 20-21
>


He writes "Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability
is still there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an
equal moral status value to them." Then after that he says, failing
that we can always bite the bullet and give them partial moral status.
If you bite that bullet, you've conceded the argument from marginal
cases. With regard to the first point, in order for that argument to
have any chance of succeeding he has to give us some reason why there
is more reason to think the capability is present in a radically
cognitively impaired human than in a nonhuman animal. Of course, in
order to do this he'll need to give us some clue as to what a
capability actually is, I eagerly await any help on that score.

> "This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases
> of marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents
> and will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded.
> Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability is still
> there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an equal
> moral status value to them. If this justification is not accepted,
> however, it does not necessarily follow that they have no moral status
> value at all. They may have a gradual moral status value, depending on
> the argument which we shall discuss below. As for those who are borne
> without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
> According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to
> all moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and
> egalitarian. If this way of understanding the relation between moral
> persons and moral agents works, there will be no need to distinguish
> Agent's Rights and Human Rights the way Warren does. They will be
> grounded in the same internal property of moral persons, and there will
> be no need for a supplementary justification based on an external
> relation such as membership in a human society.
> The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
> will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
> can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
> moral status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
> the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
> to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its
> absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying
> moral status to them."
>
> > There's nothing in
> > accepted science that tells me that either. Unless "capabilities" is a
> > code-word for "what's typical of the species". In that case, I don't
> > think you should confuse the issue by using the word "capabilities",
> > and I also think you're misinterpreting Wetelesen, I think you're
> > presenting Carl Cohen's argument using his words, mistakenly thinking
> > that it's his.

>
> No "capabilities" is exactly what it says, the fact that it, like
> everything else in life, is not 100% verifiable does not alter the fact
> that it is real.
>


Well, that's lovely to hear, but my problem is I have no idea what it
means.

> A plane has a value of millions of dollars based on the educated
> assumption that it has the capability to fly us to our destination. A
> bus is valued far lower because we know it has no such capability. We
> are willing to risk our lives on the surety on our first assumption,
> even though it is not 100% verifiable, nothing is. We CAN however be
> 100% sure that the lower valued bus will NEVER fly us to our destination.
>


You can also be 100% sure that a radically cognitively impaired human
will never have the ability to have linguistic competence, moral
agency, or anything like that. So where does that leave us?

> >>>> Those that do NOT possess the capabilities of their species
> >>>> due to one of these unfortunate eventualities are anomalous, they don't
> >>>> provide a basis to discard the rule which governs the species.
> >>> The author of that essay accepts moral individualism, which says that
> >>> individuals should be judged on the basis of their characteristics as
> >>> individuals, not on the basis of the characteristics of their species.
> >> That's fine, that term is not found in the essay, however we are judging
> >> individuals based on their individual capabilities,

>
> > Yes,

>
> Are you conceding that the term "moral indivudualism" is NOT used in
> Wetlesen's essay?
>


Of course I agree with that, I never suggested otherwise. Also, in the
above you are conceding that Wetlesen is a moral individualist,
because you say he judges individuals based on their individual
capabilities. That's what being a moral individualist means. Glad we
straightened that out.

> > whereas Cohen does not. This is the point I was making earlier
> > when you said I didn't know what I was talking about.

>
> You said that I was repeating Cohen's argument, you were wrong, I am
> not.


Jolly good. I'm just having a bit of trouble squaring this with your
assertion that having just one member of a particular species who has
the requisite abilities is enough to give all the individuals in that
species the requisite capabilities. You really sounded a lot like you
were going back to Cohen's argument then. That sounds a lot like the
argument from species normality. I think you might want to take more
care to keep clear which argument is which. Anyway, never mind.


> Cohen refers to "kind" as being the morally significant factor,
> although I agree that is a strong component, I am agreeing with Wetlesen
> that it is "capability" that is the key issue, and "kind" is secondary,
> primarily a way of ascertaining capability, or lack of.
>


So why would just one individual in a particular species having the
requisite abilities be evidence of all the individuals in the species
having the requisite capabilities? Of course it all comes back to what
"capability" really means. Still utterly in the dark on that one, I'm
afraid.

>
>
> >> and discovering what
> >> those capabilities are by referring to their species.

>
> > But why is species membership by itself a sufficient basis on which to
> > make the judgement?

>
> How do you determine which of these vehicles can fly, a plane, a car, or
> a bicycle? Do you examine each one and test it in a lab? Is it not
> sufficient to be aware that the capabilities and limitations of each is
> already known from past experience?
>


Usually, yes. However, when I know that the plane's engine has serious
structural defects, I generally regard that as a sufficient reason to
assume that plane probably can't fly.

> Should we assume that every chicken will potentially be the first one to
> reason and talk? Isn't it more sound to assume that chickens can't
> reason and talk? Do we need "research" to prove what we already know? Why?
>


The assumption that chickens can't reason and talk is very reasonable.
So is the assumption that radically cognitively impaired humans can't
reason and talk.

> I can't think of a plausible account of anything
>
> > that should reasonably be called "capability" on which species
> > membership alone would be enough to make the judgement. I mean, you
> > might be saying, having the right DNA is enough, and we are justified
> > in assuming that members of the same species have the right DNA. It's
> > a pretty bizarre interpretion of "capability" if having the right DNA
> > is enough. I really don't see what's the big deal about having the
> > right DNA. And what about a Tay-Sachs infant? You might say, that's
> > just an inessential variation on the right DNA, they've still got
> > enough of the right DNA to have the "capabilities" in question. That's
> > a scientific hypothesis that has to be verified by research, not
> > something that can just be observed from everyday experience.

>
> >> Just like we board
> >> a plane when we want to fly, not a bus. We know by experience what the
> >> capabilities of each are.

>
> > Yes, but if I find out that the plane is still being built, or that it
> > has serious structural defects in its engine which prevent it from
> > flying, I usually conclude that it didn't have the capabilities I was
> > after. How close to a functioning plane is "good enough"? What if all
> > the parts of the plane are lying disassembled on the floor, is the
> > capability still there? If I start to put them back together again, at
> > what point does the capability re-emerge? I have no idea how to go
> > about answering such questions, because I've been given no real clue
> > as to what having the "capability" amounts to.

>
> You're deliberately making it difficult when it's not at all.


Wrong.

> Capability
> is exactly and literally what it says, nothing more or less.


It can't be the ordinary usage. There is supposed to be a distinction
between capability and ability. In ordinary usage there's no such
distinction. It's a technical term, and it needs a definition.

> We deduce
> from billions of examples what it is and what it isn't, depending on the
> species. We know when a human is born that it will NOT be able to fly,
> even though that is not 100% verifiable until the human grows to
> maturity and tries to leap off a building.
>


And there are plenty of humans whom we know will never develop the
abilities of reason, linguistic competence, and moral agency. Hence
the argument from marginal cases.

> >>> In this respect, the author of that essay and I are in agreement. So
> >>> if the rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases is to succeed, he
> >>> must show that all humans (except perhaps those without brains) have
> >>> the "capabilities" in question. He would certainly accept this. Now, I
> >>> don't know how we would go about deciding which marginal humans have
> >>> the capabilities in question.
> >> They all do. Marginal humans have the capabilities, but the capabilities
> >> are hampered by a disability so the operative abilities do not all
> >> develop.

>
> > What do you *mean* by this? I don't see how you could justify this
> > claim without giving some sort of account of exactly what went wrong
> > with their brain development. I don't see how the claim can be made
> > sense of without being tied to theories of brain development which are
> > a matter for scientific research, not everyday observation.

>
> We don't NEED to understand brain development to know that humans can
> reason and talk and eagles can fly. Eons of experience are the best
> scientific research you could ever want.
>


I don't understand how I could have have reason to think that a claim
like "a radically cognitively impaired human has the capability for
linguistic competence" might be true without knowing something about
brain structure. I really have no idea what such a claim would mean,
but the best I can do by way of interpreting it is as a scientific
hypothesis that certain brain structures are common to the radically
cognitively impaired human and myself (but not to nonhuman animals).
Nothing wrong with putting forward such a scientific hypothesis, but
it needs more than just everyday experience to confirm it.

>
>
> >> Since all humans by their inherent nature have the
> >> capabilities, and no other species has them,

>
> > Well, it's very easy to say that. You apparently think this is
> > something that we can all immediately observe from everyday
> > experience. I have no idea what it means.

>
> You should, it's very, very simple.
>


All right, so I'm thick. So you're going to have to decide whether you
have the patience to help me see the light.

> You know Popper's
>
> > falsifiability criterion? For a hypothesis to say anything, it has to
> > be capable of being falsified. What future observations would lead you
> > to conculde that you were wrong about this? In particular, what future
> > observation would lead you to say "I was wrong, this human doesn't
> > have the capability in question"?

>
> I would refer you to this quote," Popper discussed this critique of
> naïve falsificationism in Chapters 3 & 4 of The Logic of Scientific
> Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of
> 'natural selection'. Theories that say more about the way things appear
> are to be preferred over those that do not; the more generally
> applicable a theory is, the greater its value."
>


Or to put it another way, theories which take more risks, which there
are more opportunities to falsify, but which nevertheless pass the
test of empirical experience, are to be preferred. Theories which
don't stick their neck out and run the risk of being falsified are not
really saying anything.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
>
> This seems quite apt in this discussion. Wetlesen's thesis of moral
> personhood based on capabilities says more about the way things appear


How does it run the risk of being falsified? What would it take to
falsify it? How has it withstood the test of empirical examination?
What bold predictions has it made which have gone unrefuted?

> than the argument from marginal cases, which leaves us more or less in a
> conundrum about how we should act. It doesn't describe how we act or
> our intuition, and it can't even be expressed without esoteric lingo.
>


I think the argument from marginal cases can be expressed in quite
straightfoward terms. I never have any trouble explaining it to
anyone. I don't think it leaves us with such a conundrum about how to
act, either. I've used it as a basis for making various moral
decisions, I think it's provided me with fairly clear guidance and I
find it quite an intuitively appealling way of thinking about the
issues. This attempted rebuttal seems to me just like a desperate last-
ditch attempt to rescue old prejudices from crumbling.

> >> then deciding by species is
> >> the only reasonable way to accomplish the task. We could interview every
> >> chicken, mouse and cockroach, but that would be time consuming and we we
> >> know already what the outcome will be.

>
> >> > This is because I don't understand what

>
> >>> having the capabilities in question consists in, I haven't been told.
> >> It consists in having them, and the way we know if an individual *might*
> >> have them is by checking to see if the individual belongs to a species
> >> that has had ONE member which has exhibited them at least once in all of
> >> recorded history.

>
> > As I say, I think this is a misinterpretation of Wetelesen. You seem
> > to be saying if one conspecific has the abilities, that is sufficient
> > for the capability to be present.

>
> It is sufficient to assume that others may, and to give them the benefit
> of the doubt. In other words, if *one_single* chimpanzee exhibited the
> capabilities, that would be sufficient to create an exception for the
> entire species..
>


I find it implausible that this would apply to every individual in the
species, no matter how impaired.

> If no bus EVER flies, we can safely assume that no bus will, that buses
> can't fly.
>


Yes, thank you, that is certainly an astute observation. No radically
cognitively impaired human ever exhibits linguistic competence or
moral agency, either, and there are lots of very good reasons why we
know they never will, we don't need to just make an educated guess.
So...

> > I think that it is ridiculous to
> > call such a property a "capability" and I'm sure that's not what
> > Wetelesen means.

>
> If I understand you correctly that is exactly what he means.
>
> > Do you have the capability to understand the proof of
> > the independence of the continuum hypothesis, because I have the
> > ability to understand it?

>
> Yes, absolutely.


Then why doesn't a chimpanzee have the capability as well? What's the
big deal about the fact that the chimpanzee happens to be of a
different species?

You can say that you have the capability but a mentally retarded three-
year-old child doesn't, okay, then we have to tell a story about where
we draw the line and why. This concedes that some humans lack the
capabilities of typical humans, so it's not very consistent with the
general thrust of what you're saying.

Or, you can say the mentally retarded three-year-old child has the
capability, but the chimpanzee doesn't. So then you need to explain
why species membership is such a big deal. You may say, the three-year-
old child is human so we give her the benefit of the doubt, well, what
hypothesis exactly are we entertaining about her and giving her the
benefit of the doubt about? What difference between her and the
chimpanzee are we conjecturing to exist? Is it a conjecture about
brain structure? Genetic structure? What is the moral importance of
these things supposed to be?

> Of course some concepts may be just too complex for
> some individuals, but in general they possess the "kind" of cognitive
> abilities necessary.
>
> > This is more like Carl Cohen's argument,
> > although I'm not sure he would regard one conspecific having the
> > abilities as being enough, he might want a majority of them to have
> > the abilities.

>
> If one chimp started talking, that would immediately change our outlook
> on chimps, ALL of them.
>


Every single last one? Why? Seems a bit rash to leap from a judgement
about one individual to a judgement about every single individual in
an entire species. Wouldn't we want to do a more fine-grained
investigation?

> >> If so, then he does, if not, then he does not. It is
> >> pure scientific reasoning. Lo and behold, aside from the occasional
> >> malfunction, the operative abilities manifest or do not manifest, as the
> >> case may be, every time. And no anomaly ever gives a non-human the
> >> abilities. When that happens we will be forced to re-think.

>
> > Is it an a priori truth that all members of a given species have the
> > same capabilities?

>
> They have the same "kind" of capabilities, not to exactly the same
> degree. Some chimps are stronger than others, but all have great strength.
>


Well, that's just not true. Normal chimps have great strength. I'm
sure there are a few who don't.

> > Or is that a hypothesis that we check by
> > investigation? If so, how would we go about verifying it? Why are you
> > so sure that it's true, how can you know?

>
> The investigation has been going on for thousands of years. We already
> know the capabilities and limitations of different animals, and those
> are accurately delineated by knowing the species they belong to.
>


But we also know that there is a lot of variation within each species,
and in particular we know that some humans are radically cognitively
impaired, and if there is any morally important sense in which they
are more "like us" than nonhuman animals, or in which it is reasonable
to conjecture that they are more "like us" than nonhuman animals, then
we have to be told what that is. That is the challenge posed by the
argument from marginal cases.

> The major flaw in the argument from marginal cases is that it cannot
> deal with the complete inability of any non-human to exhibit the kinds
> of advanced cognitive functions that normal humans do.
>


Why is that a problem for the argument? That is conceded from the
start.

> It relies on comparing healthy animals with severely brain damaged
> humans. Besides the fact that this is a fundamentally skewed approach,


What's wrong with it?

> there are any number of reasonable explanations why such humans are
> accorded special status, based on faint hope, emotional attachments,
> fear, religious beliefs etc. etc..


Well, make up your mind. You tell me why these humans have full moral
status and nonhuman animals don't. I thought you were trying to argue
it's because of some "capability" they have, whatever that means. Now
you're saying it's to do with faint hope, emotional attachments, fear,
or religious beliefs. (I don't happen to have any religious beliefs
myself, so I'm not likely to find such arguments particularly
compelling. I understand you don't either).

Anyway, whatever the reason is, the whole point of the argument from
marginal cases is to challenge its opponent to come up with such a
reason. So let's hear it.

  #1014 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>> We know.
> >>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>> Sensible folk
> >> ...but not you.

>
> > Tell us more about how sensible people view the world

>
> Go back and read my posts.


Oh, I do. I read them over and over again, they're so much fun. But I
want you to come up with some more funny stuff, Ball. Please.

  #1015 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>>>> We know.
>>>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>>>> Sensible folk
>>>> ...but not you.
>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world

>> Go back and read my posts.

>
> Oh, I do.


Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
dishonest.


  #1016 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>> ...but not you.
> >>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >> Go back and read my posts.

>
> > Oh, I do.

>
> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> dishonest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
people view the world, and I want you to make some more so that I can
continue to roll around on the floor in fits of hysterical laughter at
how utterly absurd you are. "Disingeuous", "dishonest" - surely that's
a bit unkind, Ball? Just a simple request for more entertainment.
Surely you would not be so mean-spirited as to deny me?

  #1017 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>>>>>> We know.
>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>>>>>> Sensible folk
>>>>>> ...but not you.
>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
>>>> Go back and read my posts.
>>> Oh, I do.

>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
>> dishonest.

>
> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> people view the world


And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
from you.
  #1018 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


{..]

>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
>>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
>>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
>>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
>>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
>>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
>>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
>>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
>>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.

>> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.

>
> What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?


You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
other ways."

How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?

>> And that also
>> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
>> which you might prefer I eat.

>
> Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?


Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
harm resulting from the foods. This might be based on your focus on the
fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
ignored, justified, less definitive.

>> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
>> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
>>

>
> Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
> accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
> statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
> Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
> wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
> about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
> business.


Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
choices I make.


[..]

Most of this is covered in more recent threads.
  #1019 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 10:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>> Oh, I do.
> >> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >> dishonest.

>
> > Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> > people view the world

>
> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> from you.




Goo, Rupert is punting you all over the place.

Aren't you the least embarrassed about it?



  #1020 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 7:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> The argument that individuals should be treated according to the
>>>>> characteristics typical for their species is a different argument.
>>>>> That's Carl Cohen's argument. It's not the argument in the essay we've
>>>>> been talking about.
>>>> Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>> Pfffft.
>>>> Cohen says that
>>>> species itself or "kind" is significant. Wetelesen says that it is the
>>>> "capabilities" that are significant, not an animal's species per se,
>>> Yes, I know, this is exactly what I said....

>> No it is not. You claimed that I am referring to characteristics typical
>> for the species as Cohen does. I am not.
>>

>
> Make up your mind about what you're objecting to. I said that Cohen's
> argument is not the same as the argument in the essay, which is
> undeniable, and you objected to this.


That's not what I understood you said, you said that *my* statements are
reflecting Cohen's argument.

Now you've abandoned that
> objection and instead you're objecting to my claim that what you're
> saying is really just another form of Cohen's argument. You really
> seem to be quite confused. Fine, so if it's not just another version
> of the argument from species normality, then what is it?


It's based on capabilities.

Apparently,
> if just one conspecific of an individual has the requisite abilities,
> then the individual has the requisite capabilities.


Will most likely have..

What definition of
> "capability" is going to give you that result?


A very generous one, one that remains open to possibilities based on
experience.


>
>>>> and
>>>> if other species exhibited the abilities then they would be due the same
>>>> consideration.
>>> Carl Cohen thinks that as well. The point is, Wetelesen accepts moral
>>> individualism, Carl Cohen denies it. You're obviously not clear on
>>> that distinction.

>> Cite where Wetlesen mentions moral individualism.
>>

>
> He doesn't use the term "moral individualism". If you like, I can
> point you to a different essay with a definition of the term, then I
> can justify my contention that Wetlesen accepts moral individualism,
> so defined, by means of citations. I can't be bothered right now.


Fine, it seems like a diversion anyway.

>>> If you want to go with an approach that denies moral individualism,
>>> that's fine, but it's not consistent with the approach taken in this
>>> essay.

>> I don't, that's a strawman.
>>

>
> I have a hard time reconciling the contention that one conspecific
> having the requisite abilities would be enough with moral
> individualism. Enlighten me. What would knowledge about the
> characteristics of one conspecific of an individual enable us to
> conclude about the characteristics of this particular individual? I'm
> one of your conspecifics, I understand set theory and enjoy watching
> "Doctor Who", does that tell us anything much about you? Not a lot, as
> far as I can see.


It tells us everything we need to know. If one member of a species can
understand set theory and laugh at Dr Who, based on what we know about
the consistency of capabilities among members of a species, it tells us
that I very likely have similar cognitive capabilities, certainly the
relevant ones.


>>>> He even mentions that other species already deserve the
>>>> benefit of the doubt. The irony is that you claim to deny this approach,
>>>> yet your own approach of "relevantly similar" appears to be basically
>>>> the same thing.
>>> My approach accepts moral individualism, like Wetelesen's.

>> Show where he uses that term.
>>

>
> See above.
>
>> However,
>>
>>> unlike Wetelesen, I deny that there is any set of characteristics
>>> common to all humans with a brain which no nonhumans have. Hence I
>>> accept the argument from marginal cases.

>> This is a false argument by abuse of the absolute word "all". There is
>> no characteristic of *any* species that is exhibited by ALL members of
>> that species,

>
> Quite. So you have to judge on the basis of individual
> characteristics.


No, that is also invalid, now you have swung the pendulum too far the
other way. You can determine the relevant capabilities, and particularly
limitations of individual animals to within a miniscule margin of error
by observing the species to which they belong. It would be tedious in
the extreme to assume that every individual dung-beetle or dog may have
the ability to understand set theory or laugh at Dr Who.

> That's what moral individualism says,


Then I don't believe in it.

> and I thought
> you were saying you too accepted moral individualism.


No, I said that we are basing our understanding of the capabilities of
each individual organism by a rational process beginning with
observation of their species. We're not judging *them* per se based on
their species, we are *using* their species as a means to derive
knowledge about their capabilities and limitations.


Which means you
> either have to grant nonhuman animals full moral status, give
> radically cognitively impaired humans lesser moral status, or find a
> morally relevant difference between nonhuman animals and radically
> cognitively impaired humans.


You're just throwing the argument from marginal cases at the wall hoping
it will stick.

> Wetlesen attempts to do the last, my
> whole point has been that you and he have not yet given us enough
> reason to think that he has succeeded.


You have failed to grasp his argument, the basic concept of capability
is still bouncing off your brain.

>> therefore the requirement is unsound. What there ARE are
>> limitations within species which apply to ALL members of those species.
>>

>
> So "limitations" are not "characteristics"? I'm afraid I'm lost here.


By limitations I mean the upper end of the scale of abilities. Each
species has limitations which are reflected in every individual within
the species. It means the capabilities which are *never* exhibited by
members of that species. Limitations are not affected by marginal cases,
therefore an approach to moral consideration based on limitations is not
effected by the argument from marginal cases.

>
>>>>> That essay thinks that it can identify some
>>>>> characteristics that almost all human individuals have but no nonhuman
>>>>> animals have. That may be, but we haven't been given an adequate
>>>>> explanation of what those characteristics are yet.
>>>> Yes you have, you're blind as a bat. I have repeated them a half dozen
>>>> times in this very post.
>>>>>>>> The same sense that baby eagles have the inherent ability to soar
>>>>>>>> hundreds of feet above the ground detect the slightest movement of a
>>>>>>>> mouse in the grass below. These are species-specific inherent capabilities.
>>>>>>> Most eagles will develop the abilities you are talking about, and
>>>>>>> there are various causal mechanisms for that. However, some baby
>>>>>>> eagles will never develop such abilities, for various reasons, and to
>>>>>>> get clear about whether these baby eagles still have the "capability"
>>>>>>> to do it we need to get clear about what that *means*.
>>>>>> They are assumed to have the capabilities specific to their species, and
>>>>>> barring some birth deformity, accident, disease or other unusual event,
>>>>>> they will.
>>>>> And why is that, exactly? Is it because the capability consists in
>>>>> having certain types of genetic information in your cells, or some
>>>>> such thing? Just try to give an explanation of what having the
>>>>> capability actually consists in.
>>>> It consists of having the capabilities, that's all. Why can planes fly?
>>>> Why can birds fly? Why can humans reason? It's in their nature because
>>>> of the way they evolved.
>>> This is all just babble. I can reason because of the structure of my
>>> brain. Infants can't because their brain hasn't developed all that
>>> structure yet, though there is some structure in common. You're saying
>>> that the infant still somehow has the "capability" to reason.
>>> Presumably you'd also say a broken plane still has the "capability" to
>>> fly if it is some structure in common with a functioning plane, even
>>> though it has some structural defects which prevent it from flying.
>>> You've got to specify how much of the structure needs to be present.
>>> This is why it's a matter for scientific investigation, not common
>>> sense. It's a promissory note on a scientific research programme,
>>> nothing more.
>>>> The key is that we are able to recognize which
>>>> beings have which capabilities because we know about them from
>>>> experience, and experience tells us that certain species have certain
>>>> capabilities and not others.
>>> How? How does it tell us this?

>> Ten thousand generations of human beings tells us.
>>

>
> That tells me that all humans with a brain have these capabilities?
> How?


You are abusing the discussion with the absolute word "all" in your
question. Ten thousand generations of human beings tells us that 99.999%
of humans have it, therefore any given human being will have the
relevant capability. When you combine that with the fact that ZERO% of
non-humans have the capability, you have a clear case why the argument
from marginal cases does not work.

>
>> > How does experience tell me that an

>>
>>> infant has the capability for reason? I don't even know what that
>>> means. Does a fetus have the capability for reason?

>> Yes, of course.
>>

>
> You know, I'd be interested in knowing whether Jon Wetlesen would
> agree with you on that point. Maybe you could ask him.


I'm not going to bother him.

> So, anyway, to address what you say: a fetus has the capability for
> reason, that's obvious, is it?


It is to me.

I don't think that any reasonable
> person would accept that it's obvious on any reasonable interpretation
> of those words. It's obvious that we have a capability for reason
> before there is organized electrical activity in the cerebral cortex?


You're confusing capability with ability. Capability is defined as
undeveloped or non-operative ability.

> You really think anyone else is going to swallow that?


I'm not really that concerned with anyone will or will not swallow, I am
presenting my view.
>
>>> A zygote? A sperm-
>>> egg pair?

>> Yes.
>>

>
> As I say, I would really be interested in knowing if Jon Wetlesen
> would agree with you. So, anyway, I've seen someone on the Internet
> argue that human life begins at gametogenesis before, he derived some
> interesting consequences from that view. The egg in the sperm-egg pair
> that became me first came into existence while my mother was in my
> grandmother's womb, back in 1955. The sperm came into existence a
> short while before I was conceived. So when that happened, there were
> a sperm and an egg, existing in two separate bodies. And the pair
> comprised by these two entities, if I understand you aright, had just
> as much capability for reason, and just as much moral status, as you
> or I. Do I have that right?


Without getting too far into the debate on abortion, I would say that
capability and everything else in this discussion refers to specific
organisms or animals, which sperm and ova are not.

>
>> > What about humans who will never develop cognitive

>>
>>> capacities beyond that of a dog?

>> No,

>
> Then there's no rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases.


Not true, that's a circular argument and a giant leap.


>> but a rare aberration in development does not invalidate a general
>> rule that works 99.999% of the time.. Nonetheless, other reasons exist
>> to extend consideration to marginal humans.
>>

>
> So we need to be told what those reasons are, and only then will the
> rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases begin.


I did this elsewhere, but it's gratuitous.

>
>>> What makes it reasonable to say that
>>> they have the "capability" for reason
>> > We may not know at an early state that they are impaired, but it's

>> not reasonable to formulate a rule by a rare exception.
>>

>
> You've said you accept moral individualism.


That's your term, based on what you have said since, I don't accept it.


> So the moral status of a
> being is determined by its individual characteristics. You either have
> to deny full moral status to a radically cognitively impaired human,


No

> grant full moral status to a nonhuman animal, or identify a morally
> relevant difference between the two. You now seem to be conceding that
> Wetlesen hasn't actually succeeded in doing the last one.


You're just repeating the AMC.

>
>> > but a dog doesn't?

>>
>> We know enough about dogs that we can form an extremely accurate opinion
>> about their capabilities, and it has nothing to do with impaired humans.
>>

>
> Why can't I form just as accurate an opinion about the capabilities
> (whatever the hell "capabilities" are, I guess that's the problem) of
> a radically cognitively impaired human?


Yes that is your problem, and you are correct that it is difficult to
ascertain the cognitive limitations of an impaired human being, but as
Wetlesen says, it is reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt.

>
>> > Where is this

>>
>>> capability, in the genes, in the neural structure? How can this be
>>> something that I can just observe from "everyday experience", as
>>> opposed to a scientific hypothesis that needs to be substantiated by
>>> research?

>> What more research do you require beyond ten thousand generations of
>> humans born with the capability of reason, and countless generations of
>> non-humans without it?
>>

>
> How does this tell me anything about the capabilities of marginal
> humans, which is what we are talking about?


*We're* not talking about marginal humans, *you* are. We're talking
about Wetelesen's approach to determining moral status. Marginal humans
in his view are seen as a special case with indeterminate cognitive
abilities which are dealt with, reasonably, by extending them the
benefit of the doubt, along with other reasons..

>
>>> There's nothing in my everyday experience that tells me that a
>>> permanently radically cognitively impaired human has any
>>> "capabilities" that a nonhuman animal doesn't.

>> Wetlesen deals with this objection on pages 20-21
>>

>
> He writes "Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability
> is still there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an
> equal moral status value to them." Then after that he says, failing
> that we can always bite the bullet and give them partial moral status.
> If you bite that bullet, you've conceded the argument from marginal
> cases. With regard to the first point, in order for that argument to
> have any chance of succeeding he has to give us some reason why there
> is more reason to think the capability is present in a radically
> cognitively impaired human than in a nonhuman animal.


That's easy, NO non-human animal, even a healthy, intelligent one
exhibits the abilities, why would we assume that one has the capability?
In the case of humans, we have some room for doubt, or hope.

Of course, in
> order to do this he'll need to give us some clue as to what a
> capability actually is, I eagerly await any help on that score.


I hope I addressed this in another post.

>
>> "This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases
>> of marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents
>> and will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded.
>> Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability is still
>> there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an equal
>> moral status value to them. If this justification is not accepted,
>> however, it does not necessarily follow that they have no moral status
>> value at all. They may have a gradual moral status value, depending on
>> the argument which we shall discuss below. As for those who are borne
>> without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
>> According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to
>> all moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and
>> egalitarian. If this way of understanding the relation between moral
>> persons and moral agents works, there will be no need to distinguish
>> Agent's Rights and Human Rights the way Warren does. They will be
>> grounded in the same internal property of moral persons, and there will
>> be no need for a supplementary justification based on an external
>> relation such as membership in a human society.
>> The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
>> will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
>> can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
>> moral status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
>> the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
>> to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its
>> absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying
>> moral status to them."
>>
>>> There's nothing in
>>> accepted science that tells me that either. Unless "capabilities" is a
>>> code-word for "what's typical of the species". In that case, I don't
>>> think you should confuse the issue by using the word "capabilities",
>>> and I also think you're misinterpreting Wetelesen, I think you're
>>> presenting Carl Cohen's argument using his words, mistakenly thinking
>>> that it's his.

>> No "capabilities" is exactly what it says, the fact that it, like
>> everything else in life, is not 100% verifiable does not alter the fact
>> that it is real.
>>

>
> Well, that's lovely to hear, but my problem is I have no idea what it
> means.


You said that you understand what it means for a eagle chick to have the
capability of flight, even though it's wings don't work and it is
currently unable to fly. It's exactly the same thing.

>> A plane has a value of millions of dollars based on the educated
>> assumption that it has the capability to fly us to our destination. A
>> bus is valued far lower because we know it has no such capability. We
>> are willing to risk our lives on the surety on our first assumption,
>> even though it is not 100% verifiable, nothing is. We CAN however be
>> 100% sure that the lower valued bus will NEVER fly us to our destination.
>>

>
> You can also be 100% sure that a radically cognitively impaired human
> will never have the ability to have linguistic competence, moral
> agency, or anything like that. So where does that leave us?


No, you cannot be 100% sure of that, people have emerged from comas
after 20 years. As long as there is brain activity there is hope,
however small. There is currently NO reason to hope that any non-human
will speak, until one does.

>
>>>>>> Those that do NOT possess the capabilities of their species
>>>>>> due to one of these unfortunate eventualities are anomalous, they don't
>>>>>> provide a basis to discard the rule which governs the species.
>>>>> The author of that essay accepts moral individualism, which says that
>>>>> individuals should be judged on the basis of their characteristics as
>>>>> individuals, not on the basis of the characteristics of their species.
>>>> That's fine, that term is not found in the essay, however we are judging
>>>> individuals based on their individual capabilities,
>>> Yes,

>> Are you conceding that the term "moral indivudualism" is NOT used in
>> Wetlesen's essay?
>>

>
> Of course I agree with that, I never suggested otherwise. Also, in the
> above you are conceding that Wetlesen is a moral individualist,
> because you say he judges individuals based on their individual
> capabilities. That's what being a moral individualist means. Glad we
> straightened that out.


I'm not conceding anything along this line because I don't understand it
and I don't believe it goes to the point.


>>> whereas Cohen does not. This is the point I was making earlier
>>> when you said I didn't know what I was talking about.

>> You said that I was repeating Cohen's argument, you were wrong, I am
>> not.

>
> Jolly good. I'm just having a bit of trouble squaring this with your
> assertion that having just one member of a particular species who has
> the requisite abilities is enough to give all the individuals in that
> species the requisite capabilities. You really sounded a lot like you
> were going back to Cohen's argument then. That sounds a lot like the
> argument from species normality. I think you might want to take more
> care to keep clear which argument is which. Anyway, never mind.
>
>
>> Cohen refers to "kind" as being the morally significant factor,
>> although I agree that is a strong component, I am agreeing with Wetlesen
>> that it is "capability" that is the key issue, and "kind" is secondary,
>> primarily a way of ascertaining capability, or lack of.
>>

>
> So why would just one individual in a particular species having the
> requisite abilities be evidence of all the individuals in the species
> having the requisite capabilities?


Abilities stem from inherent capabilities, so the animal with the
abilities must have had the capabilities. It wouldn't prove that they
all do, but it would open the door sufficiently that I believe that we
would respond by elevating the entire species. Many people have already
elevated great apes to near human status.

> Of course it all comes back to what
> "capability" really means. Still utterly in the dark on that one, I'm
> afraid.


Still?


>>>> and discovering what
>>>> those capabilities are by referring to their species.
>>> But why is species membership by itself a sufficient basis on which to
>>> make the judgement?

>> How do you determine which of these vehicles can fly, a plane, a car, or
>> a bicycle? Do you examine each one and test it in a lab? Is it not
>> sufficient to be aware that the capabilities and limitations of each is
>> already known from past experience?
>>

>
> Usually, yes. However, when I know that the plane's engine has serious
> structural defects, I generally regard that as a sufficient reason to
> assume that plane probably can't fly.


But we assume that it can be fixed, therefore it retains it's value.

>> Should we assume that every chicken will potentially be the first one to
>> reason and talk? Isn't it more sound to assume that chickens can't
>> reason and talk? Do we need "research" to prove what we already know? Why?
>>

>
> The assumption that chickens can't reason and talk is very reasonable.
> So is the assumption that radically cognitively impaired humans can't
> reason and talk.


The assumption is that capability may remain, even if obvious abilities
do not.

>
>> I can't think of a plausible account of anything
>>
>>> that should reasonably be called "capability" on which species
>>> membership alone would be enough to make the judgement. I mean, you
>>> might be saying, having the right DNA is enough, and we are justified
>>> in assuming that members of the same species have the right DNA. It's
>>> a pretty bizarre interpretion of "capability" if having the right DNA
>>> is enough. I really don't see what's the big deal about having the
>>> right DNA. And what about a Tay-Sachs infant? You might say, that's
>>> just an inessential variation on the right DNA, they've still got
>>> enough of the right DNA to have the "capabilities" in question. That's
>>> a scientific hypothesis that has to be verified by research, not
>>> something that can just be observed from everyday experience.
>>>> Just like we board
>>>> a plane when we want to fly, not a bus. We know by experience what the
>>>> capabilities of each are.
>>> Yes, but if I find out that the plane is still being built, or that it
>>> has serious structural defects in its engine which prevent it from
>>> flying, I usually conclude that it didn't have the capabilities I was
>>> after. How close to a functioning plane is "good enough"? What if all
>>> the parts of the plane are lying disassembled on the floor, is the
>>> capability still there? If I start to put them back together again, at
>>> what point does the capability re-emerge? I have no idea how to go
>>> about answering such questions, because I've been given no real clue
>>> as to what having the "capability" amounts to.

>> You're deliberately making it difficult when it's not at all.

>
> Wrong.


I think so, but I concede that it is difficult for you to accept the
whole thesis, and this is the way your mind is rejecting it.

>> Capability
>> is exactly and literally what it says, nothing more or less.

>
> It can't be the ordinary usage. There is supposed to be a distinction
> between capability and ability. In ordinary usage there's no such
> distinction. It's a technical term, and it needs a definition.


Non-operative ability.

>> We deduce
>> from billions of examples what it is and what it isn't, depending on the
>> species. We know when a human is born that it will NOT be able to fly,
>> even though that is not 100% verifiable until the human grows to
>> maturity and tries to leap off a building.
>>

>
> And there are plenty of humans whom we know will never develop the
> abilities of reason, linguistic competence, and moral agency. Hence
> the argument from marginal cases.


We don't know for sure they will never develop further, nor do we know
the full extent of their disabilities.

>
>>>>> In this respect, the author of that essay and I are in agreement. So
>>>>> if the rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases is to succeed, he
>>>>> must show that all humans (except perhaps those without brains) have
>>>>> the "capabilities" in question. He would certainly accept this. Now, I
>>>>> don't know how we would go about deciding which marginal humans have
>>>>> the capabilities in question.
>>>> They all do. Marginal humans have the capabilities, but the capabilities
>>>> are hampered by a disability so the operative abilities do not all
>>>> develop.
>>> What do you *mean* by this? I don't see how you could justify this
>>> claim without giving some sort of account of exactly what went wrong
>>> with their brain development. I don't see how the claim can be made
>>> sense of without being tied to theories of brain development which are
>>> a matter for scientific research, not everyday observation.

>> We don't NEED to understand brain development to know that humans can
>> reason and talk and eagles can fly. Eons of experience are the best
>> scientific research you could ever want.
>>

>
> I don't understand how I could have have reason to think that a claim
> like "a radically cognitively impaired human has the capability for
> linguistic competence" might be true without knowing something about
> brain structure. I really have no idea what such a claim would mean,
> but the best I can do by way of interpreting it is as a scientific
> hypothesis that certain brain structures are common to the radically
> cognitively impaired human and myself (but not to nonhuman animals).
> Nothing wrong with putting forward such a scientific hypothesis, but
> it needs more than just everyday experience to confirm it.


The whole approach of the argument from marginal cases is backwards.
There are a lot of reasons why we continue to value marginal human
beings as we do, only partially because we leave open the hope that they
may improve or the belief that they possess some latent abilities. There
are also a whole list of social, emotional, legal and religious
motivations. I believe the AMC is DOA just on logical basis, but
considering all counts it's certainly dead.


>>
>>>> Since all humans by their inherent nature have the
>>>> capabilities, and no other species has them,
>>> Well, it's very easy to say that. You apparently think this is
>>> something that we can all immediately observe from everyday
>>> experience. I have no idea what it means.

>> You should, it's very, very simple.
>>

>
> All right, so I'm thick. So you're going to have to decide whether you
> have the patience to help me see the light.


Still?

>
>> You know Popper's
>>
>>> falsifiability criterion? For a hypothesis to say anything, it has to
>>> be capable of being falsified. What future observations would lead you
>>> to conculde that you were wrong about this? In particular, what future
>>> observation would lead you to say "I was wrong, this human doesn't
>>> have the capability in question"?

>> I would refer you to this quote," Popper discussed this critique of
>> naïve falsificationism in Chapters 3 & 4 of The Logic of Scientific
>> Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of
>> 'natural selection'. Theories that say more about the way things appear
>> are to be preferred over those that do not; the more generally
>> applicable a theory is, the greater its value."
>>

>
> Or to put it another way, theories which take more risks, which there
> are more opportunities to falsify, but which nevertheless pass the
> test of empirical experience, are to be preferred. Theories which
> don't stick their neck out and run the risk of being falsified are not
> really saying anything.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
>>
>> This seems quite apt in this discussion. Wetlesen's thesis of moral
>> personhood based on capabilities says more about the way things appear

>
> How does it run the risk of being falsified? What would it take to
> falsify it? How has it withstood the test of empirical examination?
> What bold predictions has it made which have gone unrefuted?


The idea that humans rightly deserve greater consideration than any
other animal. I think it forms a sound basis for this conclusion and
it's a conclusion that many people find difficult to accept. I think the
difficulty partially lies in a conflict between our intellectual and
emotional beings and our existence as a physical animal.


>> than the argument from marginal cases, which leaves us more or less in a
>> conundrum about how we should act. It doesn't describe how we act or
>> our intuition, and it can't even be expressed without esoteric lingo.
>>

>
> I think the argument from marginal cases can be expressed in quite
> straightfoward terms. I never have any trouble explaining it to
> anyone. I don't think it leaves us with such a conundrum about how to
> act, either. I've used it as a basis for making various moral
> decisions, I think it's provided me with fairly clear guidance and I
> find it quite an intuitively appealling way of thinking about the
> issues.


I believe that's it's appealing in that it reinforces a belief that you
hold, but it's far from intuitive in the light of the way we behave in
the real world.

> This attempted rebuttal seems to me just like a desperate last-
> ditch attempt to rescue old prejudices from crumbling.


You haven't dealt with the rebuttal yet, so I would not jump to any
conclusions. Once your mind comes to grips with the meaning of
"capability" you might have a different view.


>
>>>> then deciding by species is
>>>> the only reasonable way to accomplish the task. We could interview every
>>>> chicken, mouse and cockroach, but that would be time consuming and we we
>>>> know already what the outcome will be.
>>>> > This is because I don't understand what
>>>>> having the capabilities in question consists in, I haven't been told.
>>>> It consists in having them, and the way we know if an individual *might*
>>>> have them is by checking to see if the individual belongs to a species
>>>> that has had ONE member which has exhibited them at least once in all of
>>>> recorded history.
>>> As I say, I think this is a misinterpretation of Wetelesen. You seem
>>> to be saying if one conspecific has the abilities, that is sufficient
>>> for the capability to be present.

>> It is sufficient to assume that others may, and to give them the benefit
>> of the doubt. In other words, if *one_single* chimpanzee exhibited the
>> capabilities, that would be sufficient to create an exception for the
>> entire species..
>>

>
> I find it implausible that this would apply to every individual in the
> species, no matter how impaired.


It wouldn't have to, it would be sufficient that one had the abilities.
That's my take on this hypothetical anyway.

>
>> If no bus EVER flies, we can safely assume that no bus will, that buses
>> can't fly.
>>

>
> Yes, thank you, that is certainly an astute observation.


Yes, it is. 100% sure, buses can't fly, not so of marginal humans,
flight in a human is much more difficult thing to define.

No radically
> cognitively impaired human ever exhibits linguistic competence or
> moral agency, either, and there are lots of very good reasons why we
> know they never will, we don't need to just make an educated guess.
> So...


First of all, we don't know 100% for sure what capabilities impaired
humans have or may develop. Second, there is the list of other reasons I
have already given why we value these people anyway, not the least of
which I will add, is that we find it anathema that I can take your moral
status from you with the blunt end of a hatchet or by cutting into your
lane on the way to work.

>
>>> I think that it is ridiculous to
>>> call such a property a "capability" and I'm sure that's not what
>>> Wetelesen means.

>> If I understand you correctly that is exactly what he means.
>>
>>> Do you have the capability to understand the proof of
>>> the independence of the continuum hypothesis, because I have the
>>> ability to understand it?

>> Yes, absolutely.

>
> Then why doesn't a chimpanzee have the capability as well?


I don't claim to know that. I know that they don't though.

> What's the
> big deal about the fact that the chimpanzee happens to be of a
> different species?


What it does here in this argument is inform us of the capabilities and
limitations of members of the species. The fact that it is a different
species per se, is not what is morally relevant in Wetlesen's thesis.

> You can say that you have the capability but a mentally retarded three-
> year-old child doesn't, okay, then we have to tell a story about where
> we draw the line and why. This concedes that some humans lack the
> capabilities of typical humans, so it's not very consistent with the
> general thrust of what you're saying.


Sure it is, you're just going around in circles and repeating the AMC.

>
> Or, you can say the mentally retarded three-year-old child has the
> capability, but the chimpanzee doesn't.


We can't know for sure what the limitations of the capacities of a
mentally retarded child will be.

So then you need to explain
> why species membership is such a big deal. You may say, the three-year-
> old child is human so we give her the benefit of the doubt, well, what
> hypothesis exactly are we entertaining about her and giving her the
> benefit of the doubt about? What difference between her and the
> chimpanzee are we conjecturing to exist? Is it a conjecture about
> brain structure? Genetic structure?


It's whatever allows humans to be capable of the advanced cognitive
functions that other animals are not.

> What is the moral importance of
> these things supposed to be?


That's another question entirely. Can we leave that for now?


>
>> Of course some concepts may be just too complex for
>> some individuals, but in general they possess the "kind" of cognitive
>> abilities necessary.
>>
>>> This is more like Carl Cohen's argument,
>>> although I'm not sure he would regard one conspecific having the
>>> abilities as being enough, he might want a majority of them to have
>>> the abilities.

>> If one chimp started talking, that would immediately change our outlook
>> on chimps, ALL of them.
>>

>
> Every single last one? Why? Seems a bit rash to leap from a judgement
> about one individual to a judgement about every single individual in
> an entire species. Wouldn't we want to do a more fine-grained
> investigation?


No, we would not, we would immediately change our opinion of the entire
species once the possibility raised itself that chimps may possess
advanced cognitive and linguistic abilities.

>
>>>> If so, then he does, if not, then he does not. It is
>>>> pure scientific reasoning. Lo and behold, aside from the occasional
>>>> malfunction, the operative abilities manifest or do not manifest, as the
>>>> case may be, every time. And no anomaly ever gives a non-human the
>>>> abilities. When that happens we will be forced to re-think.
>>> Is it an a priori truth that all members of a given species have the
>>> same capabilities?

>> They have the same "kind" of capabilities, not to exactly the same
>> degree. Some chimps are stronger than others, but all have great strength.
>>

>
> Well, that's just not true. Normal chimps have great strength. I'm
> sure there are a few who don't.


There are always some exceptions, but the species chimpanzee, the DNA or
whwatever it is, makes it a probable characteristic.

>>> Or is that a hypothesis that we check by
>>> investigation? If so, how would we go about verifying it? Why are you
>>> so sure that it's true, how can you know?

>> The investigation has been going on for thousands of years. We already
>> know the capabilities and limitations of different animals, and those
>> are accurately delineated by knowing the species they belong to.
>>

>
> But we also know that there is a lot of variation within each species,
> and in particular we know that some humans are radically cognitively
> impaired, and if there is any morally important sense in which they
> are more "like us" than nonhuman animals, or in which it is reasonable
> to conjecture that they are more "like us" than nonhuman animals, then
> we have to be told what that is. That is the challenge posed by the
> argument from marginal cases.


You're just repeating the AMC over and over.

>
>> The major flaw in the argument from marginal cases is that it cannot
>> deal with the complete inability of any non-human to exhibit the kinds
>> of advanced cognitive functions that normal humans do.
>>

>
> Why is that a problem for the argument? That is conceded from the
> start.


It's a problem because that fact, that approach can be and is used to
justify the way we assign moral consideration, and the AMC does not
refute it.

>
>> It relies on comparing healthy animals with severely brain damaged
>> humans. Besides the fact that this is a fundamentally skewed approach,

>
> What's wrong with it?


It's skewed, unbalanced, it compares severely impaired against normal.

>> there are any number of reasonable explanations why such humans are
>> accorded special status, based on faint hope, emotional attachments,
>> fear, religious beliefs etc. etc..

>
> Well, make up your mind. You tell me why these humans have full moral
> status and nonhuman animals don't.


It's not an either/or proposition, it's for all the reasons mentioned.

> I thought you were trying to argue
> it's because of some "capability" they have, whatever that means.


Yes, that's true, that is why *humans* are treated differently than
other animals.

> Now
> you're saying it's to do with faint hope, emotional attachments, fear,
> or religious beliefs.


Those are just *some* of the other reasons why we continue to give
consideration to impaired humans, and therefore they form an important
component of the whole rebuttal of the AMC.

(I don't happen to have any religious beliefs
> myself, so I'm not likely to find such arguments particularly
> compelling. I understand you don't either).


We're discussing why we as a human race assign such moral consideration
to impaired humans, and so these are factors.

> Anyway, whatever the reason is, the whole point of the argument from
> marginal cases is to challenge its opponent to come up with such a
> reason. So let's hear it.


Marginal humans possess the faint or greater hope of development of
cognitive and other human abilities, they possess the possibility of
already having those abilities in some degree, they represent a group of
humans who have suffered a disadvantage or loss due to no fault of their
own of powers that they would have otherwise had. They also represent
members of families and communities who have attachments to them, and
there is the question of their legal status. For all those reasons it is
reasonable that humans extend the same basic moral consideration towards
them that they extend to other humans.

Just an aside, do you see yourself here to defend the argument from
marginal cases to the end, or have you considered entertaining the
possibility that this rebuttal is actually valid? Honestly. Never mind,
I know what your answer will be.






  #1021 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>> Oh, I do.
> >> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >> dishonest.

>
> > Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> > people view the world

>
> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> from you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes, I am fully familiar with them, and I want to supply more so that
I can continue to roll around on the ground in fits of hysterical
laughter.

Come on, Ball, "disingenuous and dishonest": you're talking as if we
were having some kind of serious discussion here. I'm just making fun
of you, that's all. And you're being very generous helping me out.

  #1022 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 2:11 pm, ges > wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:43 am, 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, 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.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> no one seems to be able to laugh at themselves.
>


It can be hard sometimes, however Ball seems to be more resistant to
it than most.

> that's why everyone's an asshole in the first place.
>
> duh.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  #1023 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 30, 7:27 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> {..]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
> >>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
> >>>>>> than
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
> >>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
> >>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
> >>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
> >>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
> >>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
> >>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
> >>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.
> >> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.

>
> > What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?

>
> You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
> other ways."
>
> How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
> when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?
>


Everyone choose options that are less than ideal, everyone also thinks
that there are some limitations on the amount of harm you are allowed
to cause. The question is where to draw the line.

> >> And that also
> >> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
> >> which you might prefer I eat.

>
> > Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?

>
> Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
> assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
> than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
> harm resulting from the foods.


No. The total harm resulting from the foods is the primary moral
consideration.

> This might be based on your focus on the
> fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
> deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
> ignored, justified, less definitive.
>


No. What I think is that people should make every reasonable effort to
minimize the total amount of harm caused. Some non-vegan diets might
be consistent with this.

> >> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
> >> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?

>
> > Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
> > accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
> > statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
> > Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
> > wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
> > about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
> > business.

>
> Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
> because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
> choices I make.
>


It seems likely that the chicken you buy will have been produced in
ways that cause significantly more harm than is caused by the
production of other foods, such as most plant-based food. The benefit
which you obtain from eating the chicken over and above the benefit
you could obtain by eating less harmfully produced food seems fairly
trivial. So, is it justifiable? Well, you decide. I simply expressed
the view that some justification was needed. Seems like a pretty
reasonable view to me. No doubt you have given serious consideration
to the question of whether or not your behaviour is justified. It's
your business, not mine. I don't know what kind of chicken you buy and
I don't know how much crop input is required for chicken production. I
haven't formed a definitive opinion about your behaviour, which I
don't know very much about anyway, and I can't really say I'm all that
interested in the matter, I'm here to discuss animal ethics. If you
find it offensive that anyone would dare to suggest that your
behaviour might be morally questioned, then maybe an animal ethics
forum isn't the place for you. I really don't see how you can run an
animal ethics forum on the basis that nobody is allowed to express
opinions which entail that what other people are doing might be
morally wrong. You're prepared to morally condemn other people for
supporting dogfighting, for example.

If you really are upset about this and want to thrash it out, fine,
let's talk it over. You tell me what you eat, and we'll try to find
out as much as we can about how it was produced, and I'll offer any
opinions I may have about whether what you're doing is morally
justifiable. Maybe I'll think it is, maybe I won't. And if you don't
agree, that's fine. You can try to convince me that I'm wrong if you
like. I really don't see what you find so offensive. I have plenty of
very good friends and family members who know damn well that my moral
views entail that what they're doing is morally wrong, and it doesn't
bother them in the least. We agree to disagree. People might think
that various aspects of my lifestyle are morally wrong in some way for
various reasons, so long as they respect the fact that I've thought
seriously about the matter and hold a different opinion I really don't
see why it should stop us from getting on.


  #1024 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>> Very good.
> >>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>> can you tell me which
> >> You stupid bitchy little fruit.

>
> > Right.

>
> Right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored, aren't you, Ball?

  #1025 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:27 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> {..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
>>>>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
>>>>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
>>>>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
>>>>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
>>>>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
>>>>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
>>>>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
>>>>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.
>>>> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.
>>> What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?

>> You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
>> other ways."
>>
>> How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
>> when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?
>>

>
> Everyone choose options that are less than ideal, everyone also thinks
> that there are some limitations on the amount of harm you are allowed
> to cause. The question is where to draw the line.


Shouldn't your focus be on your own line, not mine?

Not everyone thinks that they have figured out that 99% of the people in
the world have it wrong.

>
>>>> And that also
>>>> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
>>>> which you might prefer I eat.
>>> Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?

>> Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
>> assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
>> than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
>> harm resulting from the foods.

>
> No. The total harm resulting from the foods is the primary moral
> consideration.


Not according to veganism which preaches "no animal products" as the
rule, particularly no meat. Unless the promoters of veganism believe in
one thing and preach something else. Is that possible?? :^\


>> This might be based on your focus on the
>> fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
>> deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
>> ignored, justified, less definitive.
>>

>
> No. What I think is that people should make every reasonable effort to
> minimize the total amount of harm caused. Some non-vegan diets might
> be consistent with this.


They certainly would be if I happen to define unreasonable to include
abstaining from all animal products. And I do..

>>>> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
>>>> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
>>> Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
>>> accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
>>> statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
>>> Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
>>> wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
>>> about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
>>> business.

>> Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
>> because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
>> choices I make.
>>

>
> It seems likely that the chicken you buy will have been produced in
> ways that cause significantly more harm than is caused by the
> production of other foods, such as most plant-based food.


Does it now, show your evidence of this.

> The benefit
> which you obtain from eating the chicken over and above the benefit
> you could obtain by eating less harmfully produced food seems fairly
> trivial.


Not to me it doesn't. With regards to diet it is distinctly non-trivial.

> So, is it justifiable? Well, you decide. I simply expressed
> the view that some justification was needed.


To whom? I don't know of any ruling body that is requiring that we
provide any such justification, provided we are acting within the law.

> Seems like a pretty
> reasonable view to me.


It seems a little on the nosy side to me.

> No doubt you have given serious consideration
> to the question of whether or not your behaviour is justified.


Maybe I have, but it's my business. I'm not doing anything strange.

> It's
> your business, not mine. I don't know what kind of chicken you buy and
> I don't know how much crop input is required for chicken production. I
> haven't formed a definitive opinion about your behaviour, which I
> don't know very much about anyway, and I can't really say I'm all that
> interested in the matter, I'm here to discuss animal ethics. If you
> find it offensive that anyone would dare to suggest that your
> behaviour might be morally questioned, then maybe an animal ethics
> forum isn't the place for you.


What better place to express the opinion that within the law what I eat
is nobody else's business but mine, unless I choose to discuss it?

> I really don't see how you can run an
> animal ethics forum on the basis that nobody is allowed to express
> opinions which entail that what other people are doing might be
> morally wrong.


You're allowed to express that opinion, and I'm allowed to tell you to
mind your own business if you don't accept my reasonable response, which
is to tell you that we all cause harm to animals.

> You're prepared to morally condemn other people for
> supporting dogfighting, for example.


And they're free to tell me that my criticism is unwarranted if they dare.

> If you really are upset about this and want to thrash it out, fine,
> let's talk it over. You tell me what you eat, and we'll try to find
> out as much as we can about how it was produced, and I'll offer any
> opinions I may have about whether what you're doing is morally
> justifiable.


I'm not upset about it, and I'm not interested in having you review my
grocery purchases.

> Maybe I'll think it is, maybe I won't. And if you don't
> agree, that's fine. You can try to convince me that I'm wrong if you
> like. I really don't see what you find so offensive. I have plenty of
> very good friends and family members who know damn well that my moral
> views entail that what they're doing is morally wrong, and it doesn't
> bother them in the least. We agree to disagree. People might think
> that various aspects of my lifestyle are morally wrong in some way for
> various reasons, so long as they respect the fact that I've thought
> seriously about the matter and hold a different opinion I really don't
> see why it should stop us from getting on.


Real life acquaintances are a different matter. For reasons of social
harmony people will bite their tongues and not tell you what they really
think about your little sideways glances and obscure remarks designed to
make them feel slightly uncomfortable. Truth be told they probably wish
you would just blow away like a bad smell.


  #1026 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.



ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
Video (8.38 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img




  #1027 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
>>>>> Oh, I do.
>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
>>>> dishonest.
>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
>>> people view the world

>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
>> from you.

>
> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,


So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
  #1028 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> You know,
>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>> Very good.
>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>> can you tell me which
>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
>>> Right.

>> Right.

>
> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored


I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
psychosis.
  #1029 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.


....speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
has-been.
  #1030 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases was: The myth offood production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


The argument from marginal cases states that humans ought to treat
marginal members of their own kind no differently than they treat
non-humans with similar cognitive abilities.

The first flaw in this argument is that assumes that cognitive abilities
are the only criteria for moral consideration, and that "kind" itself is
not one. This basic premise is not argued rigorously and is as Cohen
says, non-intuitive to most people. All species of animal consider
members of their own kind to be of special status. We should not hastily
disregard our own strong intuition to do so as well. It has served us
well as a species.

But set that aside for now and consider cognitive abilities only, that
is the set of abilities which include linguistic facility, and being a
moral actor with the ability to consider and take responsibility for
one's actions. This is admittedly a valid moral criterion. Wetlesen has
advanced the notion that capacities can be viewed as operative and
non-operative, and that non-operative abilities or "capabilities" are
the actual criteria, not operative abilities. This accounts for the
moral status of infants and people with temporary or partial cognitive
disabilities. As long as there exists at the least some prospect of the
individual exhibiting the abilities at some future date then he is
treated as if he had the operative abilities. It also accounts for the
fact that non-humans have been denied full moral status, since full
cognitive abilities have never been exhibited by a non-human.

That leaves the case of the severely and permanently cognitively
impaired person with no hope of improvement. To be in this class the
person would have to have no vestige of human capabilities, they have
the mental capacity of the family dog. This is certainly a rare and
extreme level of impairment. As such, is it reasonable to use their
impaired condition as a criterion for how we view non-human animals?
That seems to be a leap at best.

What other plausible reasons could there be for treating the person and
the dog differently? Strong emotional or familial feelings on the part
of other persons? A desire to avoid a euthanasia slippery slope?
Religious considerations? A feeling of responsibility towards an
unfortunate member of society? A bond with another of our kind? All
plausible as moral considerations.

The next question is, is the way we treat this person really
inconsistent with the way we treat the family dog? We treat both with
affection, care for them and provide for their needs as long as they live.

What substance remains of the argument from marginal cases? What would
be the ramifications of carrying it to it's logical conclusion? I think
it's time for proponents to stop demanding answers and start providing
them. Let's see a thorough examination of *all* human-animal relations
from the animal rights lobby, and a moratorium on finger-pointing and
demands that the rest of us disprove their theories.




  #1031 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases was: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:19:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>
>The argument from marginal cases states


Rupert already knows, and he's been very patiently
explaining it to you, so there was no need for you
to snip the entire discussion away to derail it like this
and dodge everything he put to you, nebbish.
  #1032 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases was: The mythof food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:19:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> The argument from marginal cases states

>
> Rupert already knows, and he's been very patiently
> explaining it to you, so there was no need for you
> to snip the entire discussion away to derail it like this
> and dodge everything he put to you, nebbish.


Nothing of substance to contribute as always huh Derek? Maybe a new
sock-puppet is in order..
  #1033 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>> Very good.
> >>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>> can you tell me which
> >>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
> >>> Right.
> >> Right.

>
> > You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored

>
> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
> psychosis.


God help me, Ball, you are just too much. You *do* realize that I
laugh out loud every time I read your posts, don't you?

I can't believe you're still pursuing this line about psychosis. Let
me explain to you what psychosis is, Ball. The main feature of
psychosis is loss of contact with reality. Something goes wrong with
the reality-testing skills. When I became psychotic, it all started
with false ideas about my social relationships and work relationships,
of the kind that anyone might entertain from time to time, and
gradually spiralled out of control into ideas about being spied upon
with hidden cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads
on buses, and so forth.

Now, let's see how good your reality-testing skills are, Ball. You
thought that I was going to be stuck in telemarketing for the rest of
my life, despite having a Ph.D. in maths. Obviously a totally
irrational idea, no sane person could have taken it seriously for a
moment. When you said you couldn't find the word "axiomatizable" in
the dictionary, you really thought you had found a flaw in my paper,
you really thought you had scored a point. Utterly absurd, especially
for someone who supposedly has a Ph.D. themselves (it would be easy
enough for you to confirm this point, but you show no interest in
doing so). It's hard to understand why you would blabber on about all
the male activists in Animal Liberation being queer unless you really
believed it. Utterly ridiculous and without rational foundation of any
kind. Not to mention the ridiculousness and childishness of the idea
that any sane person would be interested in any case. And you really
believe, I can only assume, that I am seething with rage at you as
opposed to roaring with laughter. Very amusing, that one. And, of
course, you really believe that I am psychotic, that you can diagnose
symptoms of mental illness in me. In fact, my mental health has been
perfectly good for the last five years, and if you were in touch with
reality you would realize that you have no good reason to suppose
otherwise. The reason I keep replying has nothing to do with mental
illness, it is to do with how incredibly entertaining I find it to
make fun of you. It's great.

The list could go on and on, but perhaps we'll leave it there. A huge
number of ideas which are *clearly* just as irrational as any delusion
any psychotic ever had. Are you mentally ill? Well, maybe not, but it
sure is pretty damned ironic when you talk about psychosis. You really
should work on improving your grip on reality. And of course you'll go
on saying, "I don't have any delusions", and that I'm the one who
exhibits psychosis, and so on. You'll probably snip the main part of
all this and focus on my discussion of my own experiences with
psychosis six years ago. And you'll probably have the idea that you're
the one who's got the upper hand. All very good entertainment. Keep it
up.

  #1034 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>>>> Oh, I do.
> >>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >>>> dishonest.
> >>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> >>> people view the world
> >> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> >> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> >> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> >> from you.

>
> > Yes, I am fully familiar with them,

>
> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I really find it extraordinarily amusing that you have the idea that
I'm stamping my foot. What I am trying to tell you, Ball, is that I am
rolling around on the ground in laughter. No need to stamp my foot,
I'm extremely grateful that you generously provide me with so much
entertainment.

What do you suppose I'm being dishonest about, Ball? I'm just asking
you to do some more clowning for my entertainment. (And you are
graciously complying, thanks for that). It's just a request, that's
all. How can that be dishonest?

  #1035 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases was: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 31, 5:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
> The argument from marginal cases states that humans ought to treat
> marginal members of their own kind no differently than they treat
> non-humans with similar cognitive abilities.
>
> The first flaw in this argument is that assumes that cognitive abilities
> are the only criteria for moral consideration, and that "kind" itself is
> not one. This basic premise is not argued rigorously and is as Cohen
> says, non-intuitive to most people.


Make up your mind. Are we talking about Cohen's attempted rebuttal or
Wetlesen's attempted rebuttal?

Anyway, I don't agree. Cohen's "kind" argument is interesting, but I
find it fairly non-intuitive that the moral status of a being somehow
depends on what's typical for its kind, and I think most people would
agree. Also, there are all sorts of problems with this idea, such as
which kinds do we consider? Every being belongs to enormously many
different kinds. And even if we assume that we can somehow identify a
class of "natural kinds", there are still many apparent counter-
examples to the general thesis that the moral status of a being
depends on what's typical for its kind, such as the chimpanzee who can
do mathematics, or the fact that people who are mentally ill are
usually not held responsible for their actions, although typical
members of their kind are.

> All species of animal consider
> members of their own kind to be of special status.


We don't usually look to other animals for guidance about moral
behaviour.

> We should not hastily
> disregard our own strong intuition to do so as well. It has served us
> well as a species.
>


We might once have said the same thing about race. The point is that
judging the moral status of a being by what is typical for his or her
species is counter-intuitive, is contrary to what we do in many other
cases, and needs justification. Such justification has not been
forthcoming.

> But set that aside for now and consider cognitive abilities only, that
> is the set of abilities which include linguistic facility, and being a
> moral actor with the ability to consider and take responsibility for
> one's actions. This is admittedly a valid moral criterion. Wetlesen has
> advanced the notion that capacities can be viewed as operative and
> non-operative, and that non-operative abilities or "capabilities" are
> the actual criteria, not operative abilities.


But he's given no real clarification of the notion of a "non-operative
ability".

> This accounts for the
> moral status of infants and people with temporary or partial cognitive
> disabilities. As long as there exists at the least some prospect of the
> individual exhibiting the abilities at some future date then he is
> treated as if he had the operative abilities. It also accounts for the
> fact that non-humans have been denied full moral status, since full
> cognitive abilities have never been exhibited by a non-human.
>
> That leaves the case of the severely and permanently cognitively
> impaired person with no hope of improvement. To be in this class the
> person would have to have no vestige of human capabilities, they have
> the mental capacity of the family dog. This is certainly a rare and
> extreme level of impairment. As such, is it reasonable to use their
> impaired condition as a criterion for how we view non-human animals?
> That seems to be a leap at best.
>


It is clear that such a human has a high moral status. If anyone wants
to give a dog a lower moral status, they have an obligation to give a
justification for the differential pattern of judgement. That is the
argument from marginal cases. It remains unanswered.

> What other plausible reasons could there be for treating the person and
> the dog differently? Strong emotional or familial feelings on the part
> of other persons? A desire to avoid a euthanasia slippery slope?
> Religious considerations? A feeling of responsibility towards an
> unfortunate member of society? A bond with another of our kind? All
> plausible as moral considerations.
>


This is different to Wetlesen's argument. If you want to pursue these
lines of thought, go ahead. But I don't think they are satisfactory
because no-one thinks that the high moral status of the radically
cognitively impaired human depends only on such considerations. It
goes deeper than that. In particular, the appeal to religious
considerations is very weak. We're talking about secular ethics here.
You're not religious yourself.


> The next question is, is the way we treat this person really
> inconsistent with the way we treat the family dog? We treat both with
> affection, care for them and provide for their needs as long as they live.
>


But we would never think it permissible to treat the radically
cognitively impaired human in some of the ways in which we often think
it permissible to treat dogs.

> What substance remains of the argument from marginal cases?


It remains unscathed and unanswered.

> What would
> be the ramifications of carrying it to it's logical conclusion?


Radical reform in our treatment of animals, but perfectly feasible.

> I think
> it's time for proponents to stop demanding answers and start providing
> them. Let's see a thorough examination of *all* human-animal relations
> from the animal rights lobby, and a moratorium on finger-pointing and
> demands that the rest of us disprove their theories.





  #1036 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Jul 31, 12:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

>
> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> has-been.


Your opinion really has value, doesn't it, Ball?

You've never written a work as influential as Regan's main book, and
never could. You could never achieve the level of recognition in
academia that he has, no matter how hard you try.

You manifest no particular understanding of Rawls' philosophy or even
of libertarian philosophy, despite supposedly being a libertarian
yourself. Rawls is universally recognized as the most influential
political philosopher of the twentieth century, and you think he
should be thrown out of academia. You say this without making the
slightest attempt to engage with his work. That's pretty damn funny.
This from the "master of logic and philosophy".

You challenge me to defend my position, I give you a detailed defence,
and you tell me how you know all of its flaws without even reading it.

Do you ever get tired of being such a pathetic joke?

  #1037 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Jul 30, 7:33 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:

>
> > > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

>
> > ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> > has-been.

>
> Your opinion really has value, doesn't it, Ball?
>
> You've never written a work as influential as Regan's main book, and
> never could. You could never achieve the level of recognition in
> academia that he has, no matter how hard you try.
>
> You manifest no particular understanding of Rawls' philosophy or even
> of libertarian philosophy, despite supposedly being a libertarian
> yourself. Rawls is universally recognized as the most influential
> political philosopher of the twentieth century, and you think he
> should be thrown out of academia. You say this without making the
> slightest attempt to engage with his work. That's pretty damn funny.
> This from the "master of logic and philosophy".
>
> You challenge me to defend my position, I give you a detailed defence,
> and you tell me how you know all of its flaws without even reading it.
>
> Do you ever get tired of being such a pathetic joke?




No he doesn't.He's a legend in his own mind. (what's left of it)


  #1038 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 30, 8:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 7:27 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> {..]

>
> >>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
> >>>>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
> >>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
> >>>>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
> >>>>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
> >>>>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
> >>>>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
> >>>>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
> >>>>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
> >>>>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.
> >>>> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.
> >>> What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?
> >> You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
> >> other ways."

>
> >> How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
> >> when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?

>
> > Everyone choose options that are less than ideal, everyone also thinks
> > that there are some limitations on the amount of harm you are allowed
> > to cause. The question is where to draw the line.

>
> Shouldn't your focus be on your own line, not mine?
>
> Not everyone thinks that they have figured out that 99% of the people in
> the world have it wrong.
>


99% of the people in the world haven't given any serious thought to
this issue at all, and know little or nothing about the way animals
are actually treated. They just continue doing what they are doing out
of habit, they're not interested in subjecting it to serious scrutiny.
Among people who have actually given the issue some serious thought,
your position is one reasonable one to take, my position is another
reasonable one to take, probably a position like mine is taken by
about as many people as those who take a position like yours. In any
case, argumentum ad populum is a pretty weak way of defending your
position.
>
>
> >>>> And that also
> >>>> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
> >>>> which you might prefer I eat.
> >>> Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?
> >> Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
> >> assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
> >> than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
> >> harm resulting from the foods.

>
> > No. The total harm resulting from the foods is the primary moral
> > consideration.

>
> Not according to veganism which preaches "no animal products" as the
> rule, particularly no meat. Unless the promoters of veganism believe in
> one thing and preach something else. Is that possible?? :^\
>


People who believe that a vegan diet is morally obligatory believe
that the only way to minimize harm is to avoid all animal products.
You have offered criticism of this view, and as you know I accept that
it might be wrong, so I don't know why you are bringing up the views
of some other people in the context of this discussion. It's a dispute
about the facts, I really don't see why you are making such a big deal
out of it. Most vegan diets that people actually follow *are* better
than most non-vegan diets that people actually follow. As a general
rule of thumb, going vegan is a pretty reasonable strategy. There are
some other strategies which may be reasonable as well.


> >> This might be based on your focus on the
> >> fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
> >> deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
> >> ignored, justified, less definitive.

>
> > No. What I think is that people should make every reasonable effort to
> > minimize the total amount of harm caused. Some non-vegan diets might
> > be consistent with this.

>
> They certainly would be if I happen to define unreasonable to include
> abstaining from all animal products. And I do..
>


Why? What's so unreasonable about it? Most people are able to be
perfectly healthy and happy and eat lots of delicious food while being
completely vegan.

>
>
>
>
> >>>> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
> >>>> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
> >>> Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
> >>> accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
> >>> statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
> >>> Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
> >>> wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
> >>> about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
> >>> business.
> >> Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
> >> because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
> >> choices I make.

>
> > It seems likely that the chicken you buy will have been produced in
> > ways that cause significantly more harm than is caused by the
> > production of other foods, such as most plant-based food.

>
> Does it now, show your evidence of this.
>


So you *do* want to talk about this? In other places in this post you
say it's none of my business and you're not interested in discussing
it.

My judgement was based on what I know about the way most chicken is
produced, and the level of crop input that most chicken requires. The
chicken you buy may be different for all I know, but given your
admission that you do buy factory-farmed meat when it's the only meat
you can find, I found that somewhat unlikely.

We can talk about it if you want to. You tell me what chicken you buy
and we'll try to find out how it was produced and make some sort of
estimate as to whether it causes more harm than most plant-based food.
Maybe it will turn out it doesn't, it was just a guess on my part. We
can try and work it out if you want to, if you're interested in
discussing the issue. I can't say I'm utterly fascinated.

> > The benefit
> > which you obtain from eating the chicken over and above the benefit
> > you could obtain by eating less harmfully produced food seems fairly
> > trivial.

>
> Not to me it doesn't. With regards to diet it is distinctly non-trivial.
>


Very interesting.

> > So, is it justifiable? Well, you decide. I simply expressed
> > the view that some justification was needed.

>
> To whom? I don't know of any ruling body that is requiring that we
> provide any such justification, provided we are acting within the law.
>


It's a view about the methodology of moral philosophy. I can't believe
I had to explain that. Do you want to talk about ethics or don't you?

If you don't think it's legitimate to suggest that any justification
is required beyond what is required by the current law, then what are
you doing in an ethics forum? For God's sake.

> > Seems like a pretty
> > reasonable view to me.

>
> It seems a little on the nosy side to me.
>


You were the one who brought up the issue of whether eating a chicken
is justifiable. In response I expressed the view that inflicting more
harm than was necessary required some justification. That's a very
reasonable view. If you find it an affront, if that strikes you as
"nosy", then that's utterly absurd, and an animal ethics forum is not
the place for you. The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues of
animal ethics, without interpreting every view that is expressed as a
personal attack.

> > No doubt you have given serious consideration
> > to the question of whether or not your behaviour is justified.

>
> Maybe I have, but it's my business.


Quite. Never suggested otherwise. I only wish we could stop talking
about it and actually get on with discussing some animal ethics.

> I'm not doing anything strange.
>
> > It's
> > your business, not mine. I don't know what kind of chicken you buy and
> > I don't know how much crop input is required for chicken production. I
> > haven't formed a definitive opinion about your behaviour, which I
> > don't know very much about anyway, and I can't really say I'm all that
> > interested in the matter, I'm here to discuss animal ethics. If you
> > find it offensive that anyone would dare to suggest that your
> > behaviour might be morally questioned, then maybe an animal ethics
> > forum isn't the place for you.

>
> What better place to express the opinion that within the law what I eat
> is nobody else's business but mine, unless I choose to discuss it?
>


That's not in question. However, usually when people come to an animal
ethics forum they have a desire to discuss something to do with animal
ethics. And you don't seem to be capable of doing that without getting
offended that anyone would dare to criticize your diet, even though no-
one actually has.

Animal ethics forums are for people who think critically about the way
we produce our food, who don't just assume that any choice within the
law is okay, who are prepared to subject it to critical discussion.
Most people are perfeclty happy to let you do whatever you want within
the law. Some people have formed views which are critical of the
status quo, and seek to persuade others of those views by reasoned
discussion and participation in the political process. It's bizarre
that you would seek out those people and tell them you're allowed to
do whatever you want, as if society somehow seriously called that into
question, as if you were somehow affronted by the views they'd
formed.

I've never expressed any interest in discussing your diet. Everytime I
make a statement about animal ethics it comes back to you. You seem to
*want* to discuss your diet. We can if you want. If you don't want to,
then can we please stop relating every statement I make back to you?
Just talk about the issues.

> > I really don't see how you can run an
> > animal ethics forum on the basis that nobody is allowed to express
> > opinions which entail that what other people are doing might be
> > morally wrong.

>
> You're allowed to express that opinion, and I'm allowed to tell you to
> mind your own business if you don't accept my reasonable response, which
> is to tell you that we all cause harm to animals.
>


Which is a stupid response. Just below we talk about people who
support dogfighting. If they made such a response it would be stupid,
I'm sure you agree.

> > You're prepared to morally condemn other people for
> > supporting dogfighting, for example.

>
> And they're free to tell me that my criticism is unwarranted if they dare.
>


Quite. And you are free to defend your diet if you choose to. Or,
alternatively, you can choose not to make it an issue.

> > If you really are upset about this and want to thrash it out, fine,
> > let's talk it over. You tell me what you eat, and we'll try to find
> > out as much as we can about how it was produced, and I'll offer any
> > opinions I may have about whether what you're doing is morally
> > justifiable.

>
> I'm not upset about it,


Then stop carrying on about it and get on with debating the real
issues.

> and I'm not interested in having you review my
> grocery purchases.
>


Good. Can't say I would have found the task all that fascinating
either.

> > Maybe I'll think it is, maybe I won't. And if you don't
> > agree, that's fine. You can try to convince me that I'm wrong if you
> > like. I really don't see what you find so offensive. I have plenty of
> > very good friends and family members who know damn well that my moral
> > views entail that what they're doing is morally wrong, and it doesn't
> > bother them in the least. We agree to disagree. People might think
> > that various aspects of my lifestyle are morally wrong in some way for
> > various reasons, so long as they respect the fact that I've thought
> > seriously about the matter and hold a different opinion I really don't
> > see why it should stop us from getting on.

>
> Real life acquaintances are a different matter. For reasons of social
> harmony people will bite their tongues and not tell you what they really
> think about your little sideways glances and obscure remarks designed to
> make them feel slightly uncomfortable. Truth be told they probably wish
> you would just blow away like a bad smell.


Here you are engaging in fantasizing about my social life without the
slightest reasonable way of knowing anything about it. Reminds me a
lot of Ball with his fantasies he makes up about people. You're also
projecting the way you were when you were an ethical vegetarian onto
me.

There are no "sideways glances and obscure remarks". I have lots of
very strong friendships with vegans and meat-eaters alike. My friends
and family all respect the seriousness with which I've studied ethics
and the commitment I've shown to putting my ideas into practice. Some
of them like to debate the matter with me, others are happy to live
and let live. None of them are offended in the least.

You say "real life acquaintances are a different matter". Well,
obviously that's true in some ways. For example, if Ball carried on in
real life the way he does here he'd probably get punched. He'd also be
universally derided and socially ostracized. He does it on here
because he can get away with it without it affecting his real-world
social life.

But, really, I don't see why the ordinary rules of real-life social
interaction shouldn't apply here, such as respecting people's right to
hold a different opinion, and treating each other with basic courtesy.
It's not reasonable to get offended just because someone else accepts
the ethical vegan position (or some approximation thereto). You're
making this all about you, carrying on as though you're the victim of
a personal attack just because other people have come to different
conclusions than you. And you've got the idea that all ethical vegans
are the way you were when you were an ethical vegetarian. It's absurd.

  #1039 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
> >>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
> >>> is not
> >>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
> >>> My
> >>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
> >>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
> >>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
> >>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
> >>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
> >>>>> This is nonsense
> >>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
> >>> That's not an argument.
> >> It's a observation based in fact.

>
> > What facts?

>
> Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
> and manipulated to get to where you want to go.
>


Give some evidence for this contention.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
> >>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
> >>> used in
> >>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
> >>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
> >>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
> >>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
> >>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
> >>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
> >>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> Not an argument, and anyway false.

>
> > You presented no argument

>
> False.
>


Where's the argument? Where's the evidence? All I've seen are
statements. Have you ever actually *read* any utilitarian thinkers?

>
>
> >>>>>>>> The issue is who
> >>>>>>>> has the most at stake.
> >>>>>>> If you actually use "equal consideration" in the literal sense
> >>> then the
> >>>>>>> animal *always* has more at stake in the immediate equation.
> >>> Therefore
> >>>>>>> the consideration is not really equal, it's weighted. Show how
> >>> its
> >>>>>>> weighted.
> >>>>>> Arbitrarily, so that the bullshit sophist "A.L."
> >>>>>> utilitarian "wins" his little rhetorical game.
> >>>>> Nonsense. It's not weighted.
> >>>> Bullshit. You just don't know what the ****ing hell
> >>>> you're talking about. Of *course* there are weights,
> >>>> you stupid ****. But you ****s just make them up.
> >>> No,
> >> Yes, there are weights, rupie - politically chosen weights.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  #1040 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases was: The mythof food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 5:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> The argument from marginal cases states that humans ought to treat
>> marginal members of their own kind no differently than they treat
>> non-humans with similar cognitive abilities.
>>
>> The first flaw in this argument is that assumes that cognitive abilities
>> are the only criteria for moral consideration, and that "kind" itself is
>> not one. This basic premise is not argued rigorously and is as Cohen
>> says, non-intuitive to most people.

>
> Make up your mind. Are we talking about Cohen's attempted rebuttal or
> Wetlesen's attempted rebuttal?


I am presenting an argument comprised of a number of parts, and I am
identifying the references where applicable, do you have a problem with
that?

> Anyway, I don't agree. Cohen's "kind" argument is interesting, but I
> find it fairly non-intuitive that the moral status of a being somehow
> depends on what's typical for its kind, and I think most people would
> agree.


I don't know why you employ that tortured wording Rupert, the argument
is that simply "kind" is morally relevant, not "what's typical for its
kind". Saying it that way simply muddies the waters.

> Also, there are all sorts of problems with this idea, such as
> which kinds do we consider? Every being belongs to enormously many
> different kinds.


The "kind" we are talking about is obvious, species.

> And even if we assume that we can somehow identify a
> class of "natural kinds", there are still many apparent counter-
> examples to the general thesis that the moral status of a being
> depends on what's typical for its kind


There's that tortured phrasing again. *KIND*, Rupert, not "what's
typical for its kind".

> such as the chimpanzee who can
> do mathematics, or the fact that people who are mentally ill are
> usually not held responsible for their actions, although typical
> members of their kind are.


Wetlesen deals with this aspect of the argument.

>> All species of animal consider
>> members of their own kind to be of special status.

>
> We don't usually look to other animals for guidance about moral
> behaviour.


We reject our basic nature not without risk. When we look at other
animals we are seeing reflections of our own basic natures. I would have
thought you'd be in agreement with that.

>> We should not hastily
>> disregard our own strong intuition to do so as well. It has served us
>> well as a species.
>>

>
> We might once have said the same thing about race. The point is that
> judging the moral status of a being by what is typical for his or her
> species is counter-intuitive,


There's that tortured phrasing again. Species (kind) is morally
significant mainly in that it captures many characteristics in one fell
swoop.

> is contrary to what we do in many other
> cases, and needs justification. Such justification has not been
> forthcoming.


In this case it seems intuitively correct to most people for a host of
reasons, many of which are discussed by Wetlesen, and so should not be
discarded so easily. In fact we require a good reason from YOU to
discard them. It has not been forthcoming.

>
>> But set that aside for now and consider cognitive abilities only, that
>> is the set of abilities which include linguistic facility, and being a
>> moral actor with the ability to consider and take responsibility for
>> one's actions. This is admittedly a valid moral criterion. Wetlesen has
>> advanced the notion that capacities can be viewed as operative and
>> non-operative, and that non-operative abilities or "capabilities" are
>> the actual criteria, not operative abilities.

>
> But he's given no real clarification of the notion of a "non-operative
> ability".


If a neurobiologist described the specific brain mechanisms involved in
having the capabilities in question but not the abilities what
difference would that make to the argument? This seems very much like a
pretext to reject the argument rather than a valid objection.


>> This accounts for the
>> moral status of infants and people with temporary or partial cognitive
>> disabilities. As long as there exists at the least some prospect of the
>> individual exhibiting the abilities at some future date then he is
>> treated as if he had the operative abilities. It also accounts for the
>> fact that non-humans have been denied full moral status, since full
>> cognitive abilities have never been exhibited by a non-human.
>>
>> That leaves the case of the severely and permanently cognitively
>> impaired person with no hope of improvement. To be in this class the
>> person would have to have no vestige of human capabilities, they have
>> the mental capacity of the family dog. This is certainly a rare and
>> extreme level of impairment. As such, is it reasonable to use their
>> impaired condition as a criterion for how we view non-human animals?
>> That seems to be a leap at best.
>>

>
> It is clear that such a human has a high moral status.


Based on what? There are very few humans so radically impaired that they
lack any vestige or hope of awareness, while retaining brain function,
and for those few that do exist, empathy for their unfortunate condition
*alone* explains why we feel they way we do towards them.

> If anyone wants
> to give a dog a lower moral status, they have an obligation to give a
> justification for the differential pattern of judgement. That is the
> argument from marginal cases. It remains unanswered.


It doesn't remain unanswered, you continue to reject answers that you
don't want to hear.


>> What other plausible reasons could there be for treating the person and
>> the dog differently? Strong emotional or familial feelings on the part
>> of other persons? A desire to avoid a euthanasia slippery slope?
>> Religious considerations? A feeling of responsibility towards an
>> unfortunate member of society? A bond with another of our kind? All
>> plausible as moral considerations.
>>

>
> This is different to Wetlesen's argument.


If I simply intended to parse Wetelesen I would have chosen a different
subject line. Surely it's apparent by now that I am presenting a broader
perspective. Do you wish to limit the scope of my argument?

> If you want to pursue these
> lines of thought, go ahead.


Help me understand how a rhetorical remark like that gets left in. I can
understand thinking it, even typing it, but not to edit it out before
posting is confounding.

> But I don't think they are satisfactory
> because no-one thinks that the high moral status of the radically
> cognitively impaired human depends only on such considerations.


You don't know that. In fact I am quite sure that many people believe
something quite similar. Radically impaired humans are not granted moral
consideration based on their level of cognition, that is for sure. If
all humans were so unfortunate then there would be no such thing as
moral consideration, because it's one of the ideas unique to humans. For
this reason also the argument from marginal cases fails, because it
demands that we assume that level of cognition be the sole criterion for
moral consideration, and that simply is not the case, whether you
approve of it or not. For that reason we cannot take it as a premise for
the argument.

It
> goes deeper than that. In particular, the appeal to religious
> considerations is very weak. We're talking about secular ethics here.
> You're not religious yourself.


Hang on a second. You introduced by this argument the notion that we
need to explain why we treat radically impaired humans the way we do.
That makes every true reason valid, no matter whether you think that
reason is worthy or not. A reason is a reason if that is why it is done
and they all go to provide an answer to YOUR question. The answer to
your question is that ALL the reasons come into play. You can't set up a
so-called conundrum then reject the actual answer to it because it
doesn't suit you.

>> The next question is, is the way we treat this person really
>> inconsistent with the way we treat the family dog? We treat both with
>> affection, care for them and provide for their needs as long as they live.
>>

>
> But we would never think it permissible to treat the radically
> cognitively impaired human in some of the ways in which we often think
> it permissible to treat dogs.


I might take issue with that, but the fact is, humans are not dogs,
impaired or not, and there is no way or reason to impose our view of
other humans onto our view of dogs, no matter how much we may like dogs.


>> What substance remains of the argument from marginal cases?

>
> It remains unscathed and unanswered.


In your present state of mind I expect no other response.

>> What would
>> be the ramifications of carrying it to it's logical conclusion?

>
> Radical reform in our treatment of animals, but perfectly feasible.


Time to "put up or shut up", and stop making sweeping statements with
nothing to back them up.


>> I think
>> it's time for proponents to stop demanding answers and start providing
>> them. Let's see a thorough examination of *all* human-animal relations
>> from the animal rights lobby, and a moratorium on finger-pointing and
>> demands that the rest of us disprove their theories.

>
>

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 06:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 08:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 08:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 11:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"