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
  #1111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:43 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:38:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
chicken, lied:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
existence.

Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
livestock"


No - YOUR obsession with them, ****wit. You, ****wit, are the one who
"thinks" they are being "denied life" by "aras". That's absurd,
****wit, but you think it, and there is no dispute that you think it.
We have your own posts to see that you think it, ****wit:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
****wit - 07/30/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000



Then just explain HOW you think your
"non-existent imaginary livestock"


No, Goo - *your* "non-existent imaginary livestock". You, Goo, are the
one who thinks the (merely potential) "lives" of "future farm animals"
merit any consideration. But you can't say *why* any consideration is
merited.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

  #1112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 03:19 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, wrote:


[..]


Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?

Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.


But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of animals.


Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
and bulls used for fighting.


That's a lie. You once wrote that the dogs "at least get to experience
life". There is no difference morally between breeding fighting cocks
and breeding fighting dogs. You justify each of them the same way.



You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.


You agree with them completely.


I don't agree with "aras". You know it.


This is the same question you are posing to
vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.

They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.


THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
they draw the line in a different place.


You draw it at the same place they do


No. You know you're lying.


The fact that they are not
recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with other
forms of livestock is completely irrelevant.


No it's not


It is completely irrelevant.


There is no moral imperative
for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you do
when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.


That's a lie.


It's not a lie. But you don't *really* advocate the elimination of
battery hens, because you buy battery-hen eggs, which "provides life"
for them.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs
  #1113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 03:22 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:29:57 GMT, wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, wrote:

[..]


Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?

Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.

But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of
animals.

Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
and bulls used for fighting.


Fine, I agree. Animals that are going to be subjected to inhumane treatment
should never be brought into existence. That is the same way vegans think,
except they think that all commercial farming is inhumane. I don't happen to
agree with them, neither do you. Where you and I disagree is that you argue
that vegans can be criticized for "denying life" to animals,


No I don't.


Yes, you do:

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

You are *criticizing* "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
animals", Goo. Stop lying about it.
  #1114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 04:31 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.


Why? What happens if no consideration is given?

  #1115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 05:20 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 6/19/2007 9:42 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot
- lied:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot - lied:
On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy wrote:

what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,

Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to,
and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
"ought to occur"?



If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
livestock?


The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.


*WHICH* animals, Goo? Which animals wouldn't be helped, and which would
be eliminated? Goo?



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs


  #1116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2010, 07:11 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 168
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In article ,
"Fred C. Dobbs" wrote:

On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.


That doesn't mean anything. All you mean is that you want the animals
to exist.


Who left the asylum open?
The endocrine system changes the texture of the flesh from terrified and
brutalized animals, and CAFOs are bad for man and beast. E. coli
serotype O157:H7 is attributed to CAFOs. as well as MRSAs
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15kristof.html
Cattle aren't designed to eat grains, they are supposed to eat grass.
More than 6 months in a CAFO and cattle would die from ulcers. So what
we end up with is the flesh of a terrified, sick animal, who has been
used to breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, on our plate. I would think
anyone could see that this is not a good idea.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene
  #1117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-11-2010, 05:59 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Lightbulb

Bodybuilding food
All abot something what interesting for you
  #1118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-04-2012, 06:52 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
Video (8.38 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img


Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.

Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.

"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.

No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit.
  #1119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-04-2012, 01:30 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Apr 24, 7:52*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:

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


Regan says, *"They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." *Bullshit. *Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.


The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case." Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
Animals are aware of what happens to them, and at least some of them
have some concept of the future.

Regan: *"And what happens to them matters to them." *Wrong.


Actually, it is very obviously true.

"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.


It's not bullshit.

No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit..


  #1120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-04-2012, 06:11 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George wrote:
On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:

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


Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.


The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."


Sophistry.



Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.


Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.



Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.


Actually, it is very obviously true.


No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them. "Matters to
them" is completely alien to animal mentation.



"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.


It's not bullshit.


It's unadulterated bullshit.


  #1121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-04-2012, 09:19 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Apr 25, 7:11*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George *wrote:
On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:


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


Regan says, *"They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." *Bullshit. *Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.


The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."


Sophistry.


What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
thenm?

Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.


Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. *No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.


The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
reality.

Regan: *"And what happens to them matters to them." *Wrong.


Actually, it is very obviously true.


No, it is very obviously false. **Nothing* matters to them.


These claims are quite absurd.

*"Matters to
them" is completely alien to animal mentation.



"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.


It's not bullshit.


It's unadulterated bullshit.


  #1122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-04-2012, 10:46 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On 4/25/2012 1:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:11 pm, George wrote:
On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George wrote:
On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:


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


Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.


The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."


Sophistry.


What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
thenm?

Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.


Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.


The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
reality.


No, that's wrong. Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.


Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.


Actually, it is very obviously true.


No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.


These claims are quite absurd.


They're not. They're correct. Because:



"Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.


Because of that.



"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.


It's not bullshit.


It's unadulterated bullshit.



  #1123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2012, 04:59 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 7/26/2007 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, wrote:
That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
relevant difference between them.
How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
intelligence and sentience.


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


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


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


Why not? Just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe?

You /could/ learn what it is, but you're too lazy and self-absorbed for
it. Here's a start:

"Thus, asked whether she can multiply two digit numbers, a child
who at present can only multiply one-digit numbers may say that
she cannot do so at present (ability), but that she is sure she
could learn to do so if properly instructed (capability)."


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


Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.


Bullshit. You're just too ****ing lazy to go find it. I found it, and
I don't pretend to be a specialist.


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


No, he isn't. He isn't saying what all humans have at all.


Fine, then it's his burden to state what it is.


Except that he's not saying it.


He hasn't even begun to embark on this task.


Nor will he - he doesn't need to do so.



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


That sounds like by "capacity" you mean "potential ability", which he
explicitly disavows.


No, he doesn't. Stop lying about what he wrote.


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


He addresses that separately.
  #1124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2012, 02:56 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 Apr 26, 5:59*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/26/2007 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, *wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, *wrote:
That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here..
We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
relevant difference between them.
How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
intelligence and sentience.


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


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


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


Why not? *Just because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe?

You /could/ learn what it is, but you're too lazy and self-absorbed for
it. *Here's a start:

* * * "Thus, asked whether she can multiply two digit numbers, a child
* * * who at present can only multiply one-digit numbers may say that
* * * she cannot do so at present (ability), but that she is sure she
* * * could learn to do so if properly instructed (capability)."


Where's this from? Is this from Jon Wetlesen's essay?

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


Pretty much no attempt has been made to explain this crucial concept.


Bullshit. *You're just too ****ing lazy to go find it. *I found it, and
I don't pretend to be a specialist.


In order for Wetlesen's argument to be a successful rebuttal of the
AMC, he has to argue that there is at least a possibility that a
permanently severely retarded human being possesses the capability for
moral agency. What you have said so far doesn't explain what the
meaning of this is. Nor is the explanation to be found anywhere in
Wetlesen's essay.

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


No, he isn't. *He isn't saying what all humans have at all.

Fine, then it's his burden to state what it is.


Except that he's not saying it.

He hasn't even begun to embark on this task.


Nor will he - he doesn't need to do so.


He acknowledges that in order to rebut the AMC he needs to identify
some property that marginal humans have and nonhumans lack, and that
it is his burden to identify this property. My remark was correct.



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


That sounds like by "capacity" you mean "potential ability", which he
explicitly disavows.


No, he doesn't. *Stop lying about what he wrote.


I'm not.

"However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without
having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral
person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded
on the actual capability and not on the potential ability." From
Wetlesen's essay, in the section "A rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases".

Please don't accuse other people of lying when you have no rational
foundation for this accusation.

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


He addresses that separately.


No, his claim is that even a permanently impaired human may have the
capability for moral agency. This is crucial to his attempted rebuttal
of the AMC.

Have you read the essay?
  #1125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2012, 02:58 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Apr 25, 11:46*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/25/2012 1:19 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 25, 7:11 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George * *wrote:
On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:


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


Regan says, *"They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." *Bullshit. *Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.


The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."


Sophistry.


What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
thenm?


Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.


Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. *No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.


The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
reality.


No, that's wrong.


It's not. I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite
obviously).

*Aspects of reality are not reality itself. *The tale
of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.

Regan: *"And what happens to them matters to them." *Wrong.


Actually, it is very obviously true.


No, it is very obviously false. **Nothing* matters to them.


These claims are quite absurd.


They're not. *They're correct. *Because:



"Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.


Because of that.


There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
concept, and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.









"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.


It's not bullshit.


It's unadulterated bullshit.




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 11:26 PM.

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