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
  #1036 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 02:33 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 31-07-2007, 02:40 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
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  
Old 31-07-2007, 03:10 AM posted to 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 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  
Old 31-07-2007, 03:17 AM posted to 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 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  
Old 31-07-2007, 05:37 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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.





  #1041 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 06:20 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
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.


You're engaging in the worst kind of intellectual snobbery. You don't
know any more about how animals are actually treated than the average
person on the street. In fact you have a perception based on Animal
Rights propaganda that is likely less accurate.

They just continue doing what they are doing out
of habit, they're not interested in subjecting it to serious scrutiny.


More snobbery and pretension, if vegans want to scrutinize they need to
start with their own food, there's lots of death and suffering there to
keep them in hand wringing for a few years at least.

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.


You're kidding yourself, not that I really know what your position is,
but from what I can deduce, you're part of the 1%.

In any
case, argumentum ad populum is a pretty weak way of defending your
position.


I didn't use argumentum ad populum to support my position, I am telling
you a fact to put in your pocket for future reference, you form part of
a tiny minority. I realize you probably think that is irrelevant at
worst, probably a good thing, being rather elitist in nature, as you
previous statements confirm, but to a rational person it would give pause.

And incidentally, talking about "argumentums", look up "argument ad
baculum", you use it constantly.

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.


I'm not going argue this point, except to say that if all that was being
touted was veganism is "a pretty reasonable strategy" not many of us
would find anything to complain about. However, given that you strongly
advocate such ideas as "equal consideration" and "the argument from
marginal cases" I have some trouble taking your vow of moderation seriously.

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.


I'm not them. I lived a vegetarian lifestyle for 18 years, it was very
good at first, pretty good for a long time, and not very good for the
last few years, and I had some difficulty quitting. My experience
reflects that of many others. I'm sure you have seen this website.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

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.


I don't really mind, but that would only be one part of the equation, we
need to choose some plant-based foods to go up against. Any suggestions?


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.


Enjoyment of food is extremely important to me. If it were a matter of
one food being completely devoid of implication in animal death and the
other not, then there might be a basis to start rethinking, but when it
gets down to a counting game, then I know that it's a ruse, a ploy to
enforce a quasi-political agenda, not an attempt to spare animal suffering.


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?


Yes, obviously I do. Why don't you start by justifying your choices, and
see where that leads us?


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.


Your point is taken, please start by justifying your diet and lifestyle
in the context of your stated beliefs, i.e. "equal consideration" and
"the argument from marginal cases".

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.


Good idea, I will wait for you to start off.


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.


Not true, however when you state that I must give equal consideration to
animals and I must justify eating chicken you can't blame me for
inferring a criticism.


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.


OK, you first.


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.


I didn't think I needed to explain that when I say "we all cause harm to
animals" I did not mean torturing them in dog pits for entertainment, I
meant in the normal course of obtaining food and going respectfully
about our daily lives. Do I need to be more explicit? Free-range organic
chicken or wild salmon cause animal death; rice, bananas, peaches and
soya products cause animal deaths.

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.


I don't quite get why I am the one defending my diet, YOU are the one
who claims to believe that animals should be accorded equal
consideration, it seems like YOU should be the one who's choices are
under the microscope, not mine, I believe that it is legitimate to kill
animals for purposes such as food production.


[..]

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.


I'm offended when someone, particularly a member of a marginal minority,
decides that I need to justify eating a chicken because THEY in their
wisdom have decided that I am violating some universal moral principle
by doing so. It's not really so much that I am offended, I am moved to
convince them that there is a way to pursue a personal ideal
respectfully within the confines of their own life, and that they will
ultimately be happier for it.
  #1042 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 06:43 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
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, Rudy, you are


Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
  #1043 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 09:38 AM posted to 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 Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
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, Rudy, you are


Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.


Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there, Ball?

  #1044 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 10:23 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

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


'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html





  #1045 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 04:00 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
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.


I really find it extraordinarily amusing that


rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing. You've
repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.


  #1046 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 04:00 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

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


Lots.
  #1047 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 04:01 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
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?


Go back and look.
  #1048 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 04:11 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
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, Rudy, you are

Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.


Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there


No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.
  #1049 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 11:33 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
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


Lots.


I see. It is now up on my webpage what your best effort was at
answering my talk was. And your opinion has lots of value, and you are
competent to criticize someone like Regan. You really are a funny
clown, Ball.

  #1050 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 11:36 PM posted to 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 Aug 1, 1:01 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
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?


Go back and look.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You're such a joke. It's all there in the quotes, I don't need to go
back and look. You wrote "No. There's no such thing as morality in
utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by blabbering about
entities' preferences." And that's all you wrote. That's an assertion,
not an argument.



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 12:43 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