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
  #391 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2007, 07:34 PM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie. I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.

I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.


  #392 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2007, 08:59 PM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 12:34 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie. I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.



And what makes you think "animal ethics" is within *your* expertise
Goo?

You can't explain any part of it.









I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #393 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 12:20 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie.


As I say, this is the funniest delusion you've had yet. You know
absolutely nothing about mathematics, Ball. You couldn't possibly have
a clue what my level of talent is.

I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.


It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study. I have a friend,
John Hadley, who has a Ph.D. in animal ethics. He respects me as
someone with good knowledge and understanding of the field. The
director of laboratory animal services at the University of Sydney
runs a compulsory program for students who are about to do Honours
projects using animals whereby during one of the weeks of the course
two people come and speak to them, one person speaking about animal
rights philosophy and the other (my friend Siobhan O'Sullivan, who is
about to complete a Ph.D. in political science) speaking about the
politics of the animal protection movement. John recommended me for
the job when he was unable to do it himself on account of having
recently moved to Bathurst. I achieved excellent results in philosophy
during my undergraduate degree. I am well-read in many areas of
philosophy, especially so in ethics. I have a publication in a peer-
reviewed journal in the field of ethics (not animal ethics). I have
presented a paper about animal ethics at a conference which was well-
received. I recently attended a conference about Peter Singer's work
and had many interesting discussions with many people there, including
Peter Singer. I may well publish in animal ethics in the future.

Am I an expert? Well, I'm well-read in the subject and knowledgeable
about it, certainly more so than you. When I've actually got a few
publications under my belt, I grant you, then we'll have more to talk
about.

Anyway, to get to the main point: does your knowledge of my interest
in animal ethics give you any insight whatsoever into my level of
mathematical talent? Of course not, the idea is quite absurd. You
really are quite profoundly disconnected from reality, Ball.
Professional help could well be a good idea for you.


I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.


There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40. Andrew Wiles was only
just too old for it when he proved Fermat's last theorem, so he
received another form of special recognition. An Australian, Terry
Tao, recently received it for proving that there are arbitrarily long
arithmetic progressions in the primes. Terry Tao is about my age. He
was in the International Maths Olympiad at the age of ten and
completed an Honours degree at the age of sixteen. His IQ was
estimated at 230. I met his brother in the Maths Olympiad training
program, I recently met him at a meeting of the Australian
Mathematical Society. Terry Tao is much more talented and accomplished
than me, I grant you. He is much more talented and accomplished than
just about everyone.

The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one. What my level of mathematical achievement will be is
hard to say at this point. I am actually considering options other
than an academic career, in the event that I get a job in industry
that will certainly curtail my mathematical research activities. The
reason I am investigating this option is because I have been
influenced by Peter Singer's and Peter Unger's work suggesting that
there is an obligation to take the highest-paying job you can and use
the money to alleviate suffering in the poorest parts of the world. I
do not think that there is such an obligation, but studying the work
has led me to become more motivated to take advantage of opportunities
to alleviate suffering.

The fact that I probably won't get the Fields Medal does not mean that
I am not a talented mathematician, or that my Ph.D. is "worthless" or
that I am a "waste of educational resources". The Fields Medal is the
highest level of achievement possible.

I am a talented mathematician. I have always achieved at a high level.
I am very knowledgeable and widely-read, more so than my fellow Ph.D.
students. My research is interesting and important work which has been
well-received at conferences and has already caught the attention of
at least one academic other than my supervisor. So far it has one
citation, in a paper co-written by myself and my supervisor and three
other mathematicians (however, I did not contribute to the writing of
the paper, I merely provided some of the ideas in it and helped to
check it). The scholarship my university provided me with was money
well-spent. What my level of mathematical achievement will be no-one
can tell yet, least of all you. The idea that you, who knows
absolutely nothing about mathematics, have some sort of insight into
the quality of my work or how successful I will be as a researcher, is
the most amusing spectacle you have provided us with yet, and it's got
some stiff competition. I can understand your thinking you might be
competent to comment on my level of understanding of animal ethics,
but the idea that you have some insight into my level of mathematical
talent is an absolute scream. You're just too much. Keep it up, Ball,
it's very entertaining. Say some more funny stuff.

  #394 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 12:38 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:

Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on, isn't it,
Ball? The only trouble is, it's very obvious rubbish.

It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.

You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


You know, when I was psychotic, I often used to read meanings into
individual words in sentences, which would not have been supported by
looking at the context. Interesting how much you have in common with
psychotic people.

Why would I get the **** out, when I'm having such fun making a clown
out of you, as always?

And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


Apparently the way I look is somehow relevant to your contention.

Yes, well, you have all sorts of interesting opinions about people,
Ball, and you're always quite convinced that they're well-founded
opinions. You think you're competent to judge the quality of my
mathematical work, that's an interesting one. What you seem not to
understand is that in the eyes of rational people you look like a
deluded loon.

Anyway, supposing you were right, what would the relevance be to our
discussion?





He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted;


So he's an ethical vegetarian?


See below, ****drip.


he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all.


That doesn't contradict the obvious fact


Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.


A very obvious fact,


Not a fact.

This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English.


It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.


Yawn. Can't you think of any new lines? I've already pointed out the
absurd irony of this contention more than once.

rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones.


Yes, it can and clearly is. You're stipulating a nonstandard usage.

The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*.


Why? It's logically possible that every prime which leaves a remainder
of 1 when you divide it by 4 is a sum of two squares, so it must also
be logically possible that that's not the case? Why couldn't you have
an action which was clearly morally permitted and there was no serious
moral issue about it?

That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.


Why? I see no reason at all why that should be the case. An assertion
is not an argument.

If
there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.


Well, I do. As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
and I believe that my usage is standard. In any case, this is a
trivial semantic dispute. No particularly interesting issue is
resolved by whether we decide to go with your usage or mine. I believe
that my usage is clearly standard, you believe otherwise, well, fine,
what of it? It's hardly rational to make a big song and dance out of
it and start swearing at people.

You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.


Well, I'm not, Ball. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that
your point of view is to some extent reasonable, which I don't really
think it is, my point of view is perfectly reasonable as well. It's no
evidence of stupidity. It's also not very rational to practically
burst a blood vessel over a trivial semantic dispute.

that he thinks it's morally permitted.


It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.


No it doesn't,


It does. You are wrong - again.


No, I'm afraid not.

To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You can't deny that a moral question can be raised


K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.


That's not coherent.


Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
you.


No, it's not, not to anyone who understands the English language.

If you don't think something is morally
prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.


False bifurcation.


Wrong.

He thinks -
correctly - there is no moral issue.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


You're such


I'm right.


'Fraid not.


I can assure you I am.


Oh, you assure me that it is so, do you, Ball? Well, *that's*
convincing.

All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
31 years old.


Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
world, you are far younger. It shows.


How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
thinking this? I'm fascinated.


It's obvious.


Apparently you do not care to elaborate on the reasons. What a shame.
It might have been amusing.

Look, Ball, I grant you that my level of experience with full-time
employment and living out of home is less than most people my age. (On
the other hand, my level of experience with academic research is
higher). I am happy to go along with that, and I don't see any
particular reason why I should feel bad about it.

As for the remarks about my "level of social adjustment", I don't
think we can really take you as a model of a socially well-adjusted
person. Your level of social adjustment is about that of a twelve-year-
old.

And I really fail to see how you can have any insight into my level of
understanding of the way the world works. You often become strongly
convinced of certain opinions you hold about people, believing that
they are absolutely certain when in fact they clearly lack the
slightest rational foundation. I strongly suspect that this is another
case like that. But I am happy to listen to what you have to say if
you care to elaborate on the matter.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.


If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,


Not what we're talking about.


Yes it is,


No, it is not.


Translation: I've lost the argument, so I'll snip it and pretend I was
never refuted.

  #395 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 12:41 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:

Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.

It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.

You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.

And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat, was that an example of your eminent
maturity?





He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted;


So he's an ethical vegetarian?


See below, ****drip.


he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all.


That doesn't contradict the obvious fact


Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.


A very obvious fact,


Not a fact.

This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English.


It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.

rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones. The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*. That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way. If
there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.

You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.

that he thinks it's morally permitted.


It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.


No it doesn't,


It does. You are wrong - again.

To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You can't deny that a moral question can be raised


K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.


That's not coherent.


Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
you.

If you don't think something is morally
prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.


False bifurcation.

He thinks -
correctly - there is no moral issue.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


You're such


I'm right.


'Fraid not.


I can assure you I am.

All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
31 years old.


Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
world, you are far younger. It shows.


How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
thinking this? I'm fascinated.


It's obvious.

By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.


If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,


Not what we're talking about.


Yes it is,


No, it is not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





  #396 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 02:42 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie.


As I say,


No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way. You
wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.


I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.


It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.


It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.


I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.


There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one.


It's a certainly that you won't. You'll be some dull plodding
assistant professor at best.


I am a talented mathematician.


Probably not.

  #397 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 02:47 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on


It is axiomatic.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


You know, when I was psychotic


Not "was", you psychotic wreck.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


Apparently the way I look is


A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted;


So he's an ethical vegetarian?


See below, ****drip.


he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all.


That doesn't contradict the obvious fact


Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.


A very obvious fact,


Not a fact.


This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English.


It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.


Yawn.


Yeah, sure.


rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones.


Yes, it can and clearly is.


No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.


The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*.


Why?


THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
of moral prohibition. My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
permission, you stupid reeking ****. That's your false bifurcation.
It is false.


That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.


Why?


Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.


If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.


Well, I do.


Because you're given to false bifurcations.


As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,


NO, you stupid plodding ****.

  #398 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 02:48 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl


Never did it.

and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat,


Not a fabrication. He did.

  #399 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 03:08 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on


It is axiomatic.


No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.





It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


You know, when I was psychotic


Not "was", you psychotic wreck.


I have not been psychotic for over four years. Your failure to grasp
this simple point constitutes extraordinary imbecility.

And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


Apparently the way I look is


A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.


And I'm immature whereas you're the pinnacle of maturity, isn't that
right, Ball?





He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted;


So he's an ethical vegetarian?


See below, ****drip.


he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all.


That doesn't contradict the obvious fact


Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.


A very obvious fact,


Not a fact.


This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English.


It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.


Yawn.


Yeah, sure.

rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones.


Yes, it can and clearly is.


No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.

The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*.


Why?


THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
of moral prohibition.


What extraordinary drivel.

My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
permission, you stupid reeking ****.


Well, to me it obviously does, and I'm afraid I don't find your simple
denial very convincing.

That's your false bifurcation.
It is false.

That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.


Why?


Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.

If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.


Well, I do.


Because you're given to false bifurcations.


No, because I have common sense and understand the English language.

As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,


NO, you stupid plodding ****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #400 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 03:11 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl


Never did it.


Yes, you did. It was very obvious and you yourself admitted to it
immediately afterwards. I can find you the thread if you like.

and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat,


Not a fabrication. He did.


This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours, but however
that may be, only someone with the maturity level of a twelve-year-old
would think that any rational person would take the least interest in
the matter.



  #401 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 03:53 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie.


As I say,


No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.


Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
worthless and I was a waste of educational resources. Now you're
saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students. You have no way of
knowing anything about that either, but I don't necessarily wish to
contradict you there. That is still quite consistent with me being an
extremely talented mathematician. There's no shame in not being Fields
Medal material. I have done original and interesting research. That is
a substantial achievement which only a few people can do. Certainly
you are nowhere near capable of it, nor are you competent to judge the
quality of mathematical research.

You
wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.


I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work. I'm working in a
telemarketing centre, because I need the money. The computer
automatically makes the calls for me, and I write the posts in between
calls (while still maintaining a high performance level at work). So
I'm not really squandering any opportunities for research while I'm
here.

I spend almost all of my spare time engaged in study and research. I
have other interests too which I spend some time on. The bottom line
is that I have done good research, and I have recently come up with
new ideas which I also intend to publish. I am being mathematically
productive. The fact that I spend some time posting here gives you no
rational grounds at all for thinking that I am a mediocre researcher.
You think it does, but it's a joke, it's just your pathological need
to hold derogatory views about other people. I'm a good researcher,
and you have no rational grounds for thinking otherwise, and your
attempts to put me down are very amusing. Keep it up.

I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.


It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.


It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.


This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge. However,
your confidence in your ability to make judgements about my
mathematical talent is even more amusing.

I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.


There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one.


It's a certainly that you won't.


You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter. It's not
certain at all. No-one has any reasonable way of knowing, least of all
you. But I grant you I would be very surprised if I managed to achieve
at that level. However, there's absolutely no shame in not being
Fields Medal material. My supervisor, Michael Cowling, is a world-
class mathematician, and he didn't get the Fields Medal. I might very
well rise to his level of achievement. Only time will tell.

The simple fact that I have done original and interesting research is
a significant achievement. Only a few people are capable of that. You
could never dream of being able to do it. Your attempts to put me down
are really quite pitiful. I suspect it is to compensate for a sense of
your own inadequacy. What achievements have *you* had? You want to let
me read your Ph.D. thesis? And the examiner's report? How many papers
did you publish? How many citations did you get?

You'll be some dull plodding
assistant professor at best.


Again, you have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
You're holding forth on matters that you know nothing about, because
you have a pathological need to hold derogatory views about other
people. I happen to know that I have already had significant
mathematical achievements and my potential for further achievement is
quite high, so I find all this very amusing.

Anyway, what about you? What level of academic achievement would you
be capable of in economics? What makes you so much better than me?

I am a talented mathematician.


Probably not.


Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
"worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
talented mathematician. Do you know for sure, or don't you? Why don't
you just acknowledge the obvious fact that you know absolutely nothing
about the matter one way or the other? It's just your childish,
pathological need to put other people down that is generating your
confidence in your totally groundless speculations. I am in a much
better position to know something about the matter than you and I find
your drivel very amusing. I couldn't possibly care less about your
opinion. You are obviously totally incompetent to pass judgement on
the matter.

  #402 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 04:01 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
moral question about it that has been answered. That's
not what he thinks.


You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
you can't admit it.


By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
modern farming is utterly idiotic.


It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
eating meat.


You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.


None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
talent.


You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
talent or not.


I do know, rupie.


As I say,


No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.


Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.


Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.


Now you're
saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.


And that's true.


You
wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.


I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.


So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
You're unethical in the extreme.


I'm working in a
telemarketing centre, because I need the money.


So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
sunk to scoff telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!



I spend almost all of my spare


!!!!!!!!!


time engaged in study and research.


Isn't that special.


I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
outside your expertise.


It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.


It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.


This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.


I am, and I am correct.


I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
for it, nor for any Nobel.


There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one.


It's a certainly that you won't.


You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.


It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.


You'll be some dull plodding
assistant professor at best.


Again,


Always.


I am a talented mathematician.


Probably not.


Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
"worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
talented mathematician.


  #403 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 04:01 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 7:11 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl


Never did it.


Yes, you did.


I don't think so.


and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat,


Not a fabrication. He did.


This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,


No.

  #404 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 04:22 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:11 pm, Rupert wrote:





On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
you impersonated pearl


Never did it.


Yes, you did.


I don't think so.


Interesting. Apparently you fail to remember your bizarre behaviour. I
do sometimes wonder whether you might have some sort of psychiatric
condition.

Here you go.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source

and fabricated a story about David Harrison
having *** sex on a houseboat,


Not a fabrication. He did.


This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,


No.


Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
less. You snipped the main point, that all your nonsense about people
being "queer" indicates the maturity level of a twelve-year-old.
Adults regard homosexuality as just being a part of life, nothing to
get excited about.

  #405 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-06-2007, 04:26 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:





On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:


On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
That does not contradict what I said.
It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it.
That has never been in dispute.
Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted.
No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
all.


You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.
He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
examined at all.


He does think it's morally permitted.
No.


Yes, of course he does.


No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
false bifurcation.


It's not false bifurcation.


Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.


No, it's not.


Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:


Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.


WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
NEITHER.


Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on


It is axiomatic.


No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.


Wrong.


It's true that you either think something
is morally permitted or you don't.


No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
assume that there is a moral issue.


No, they do not.


YES, rupie, they do.


You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.


I'm afraid


So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
then.


You know, when I was psychotic


Not "was", you psychotic wreck.


I have not been psychotic for over four years.


Bullshit.


And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.


You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
"delicate BOY".


Apparently the way I look is


A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.


And I'm immature


Right.


He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.


Which is quite consistent with what I said.


No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
He does not think it's morally permitted;


So he's an ethical vegetarian?


See below, ****drip.


he thinks
there's no moral dimension to it at all.


That doesn't contradict the obvious fact


Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.


A very obvious fact,


Not a fact.


This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
obvious to anyone who can understand English.


It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
arrogance, you can't admit it.


Yawn.


Yeah, sure.


rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
white ones.


Yes, it can and clearly is.


No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.


The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
*prohibited*.


Why?


THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
of moral prohibition.


What extraordinary drivel.


No, rupie.


My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
permission, you stupid reeking ****.


Well, to me it obviously does,


rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.

If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
permitted. The very concept is absurd in such a case.


That's your false bifurcation.
It is false.


That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.


Why?


Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.


If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.


Well, I do.


Because you're given to false bifurcations.


No, because I


YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.


As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,


NO, you stupid plodding ****.




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 05:31 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 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017