FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/124648-myth-food-production-efficiency.html)

Rupert 07-06-2007 01:51 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
> >>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
> >>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
> >> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
> >> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
> >> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
> >> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
> >> the same attributes attaching to your choice.

>
> > It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter

>
> It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
> You are a gutter dweller.
>


No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like *you*, Ball.
You are the gutter dweller.

The nerve of you suggesting that it is my fault is a new height of
absurdity you have reached.

> >>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
> >>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> >>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
> >>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
> >> No.

>
> > Yep,

>
> No.
>
> >>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
> >> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
> >> all.

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




Rupert 07-06-2007 01:53 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 6, 5:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>
> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >> demoninator mudslinging contests.

>
> > Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.

>
> You're a willing participant.
>


Yes, but I am much better-behaved than just about everyone here,
including you.

> >> Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
> >> condescension
> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
> >> gutter.

>
> > Jon provides flawed arguments, I provide him with reasoned responses.

>
> Hardly.
>


No, what I said is quite correct.

> > I am occasionally condescending, but only as tit-for-tat.

>
> Always the victim eh Rupert? yawn...


I'm just stating a fact, it's nothing to do with being a victim? Who
the hell do you think you are, calling me condescending? You tell me I
engage in "verbal diarrhoea" and am a "psuedo-intellectual". You are
much more condescending than me.


Rupert 07-06-2007 01:54 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>
> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
> >> condescension
> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
> >> gutter.

>
> > I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
> > am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
> > into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
> > certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
> > give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
> > condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
> > really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
> > him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
> > DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
> > him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
> > responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
> > pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
> > understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

>
> I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is incomprehensible to
> anyone who is attempting to read it critically.
>


Fine, that's your view. I have come to a different view.

>
>
> > If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
> > quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
> > need improving.

>
> Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)


I think there are some fairly obvious different between us two.


Rupert 07-06-2007 01:57 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> >>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> >>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000pr f.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
> >>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
> >>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
> >>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
> >>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
> >>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
> >>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
> >>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> >>>>>>>>> justification.
> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>>>>>> obviously can be justified
> >>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> >>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> >>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> >>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> >>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> >>>> justified.
> >>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
> >> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
> >> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
> >> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
> >> is nothing that needs to be justified.

>
> > This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> > replying.

>
> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
> what you said.


It does not contradict the statement of mine which you were replying
to you, and that was my point. It is not in dispute that he and I have
different views.

> You said something needs to be
> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
>
> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
>


No, actually, you're the one who is having comprehension problems
here.

> >>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
> >>> Stop projecting
> >> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.

>
> > No - accurately describing

>
> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




Rupert 07-06-2007 02:02 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> >>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> >>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000pr f.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
> >>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
> >>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
> >>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
> >>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
> >>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
> >>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
> >>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> >>>>>>>>> justification.
> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>>>>>> obviously can be justified
> >>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> >>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> >>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> >>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> >>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> >>>> justified.
> >>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
> >> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
> >> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
> >> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
> >> is nothing that needs to be justified.

>
> > This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> > replying.

>
> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
> what you said. You said something needs to be
> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
>
> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
>
> >>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
> >>> Stop projecting
> >> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.

>
> > No - accurately describing

>
> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and you
snipped):

"If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to
it.
Hence, taking the contrapositive, if there is no moral dimension to
it, it can be justified.

What he's saying is that it's not an issue for serious moral debate.
I
paraphrased what he said well enough the last time around."

The claim is that the points you are making in no way contradict any
of this.


Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 02:10 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>>>>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
>>>>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>>>>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>>>>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>>>>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
>>>>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
>>>> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
>>>> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
>>>> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
>>>> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
>>>> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
>>> It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter

>> It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
>> You are a gutter dweller.
>>

>
> No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like


It is your fault, rupie.


>>>>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
>>>>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
>>>>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
>>>>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
>>>> No.
>>> Yep,

>> No.
>>
>>>>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
>>>> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
>>>> all.

>> Right.


Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 02:11 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
>>>>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
>>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> justification.
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
>>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>>>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
>>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>>>>>> justified.
>>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
>>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
>>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
>>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
>>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
>>> replying.

>> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
>> what you said.

>
> It does not contradict the statement


It does. You are stupid.


>> You said something needs to be
>> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
>> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
>> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
>> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
>> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
>>
>> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
>>

>
> No, actually,


Yes, actually, you're terminally stupid. The statement
contradicts yours.


>>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>>>>> Stop projecting
>>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
>>> No - accurately describing

>> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.


Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 02:18 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
>>>>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
>>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> justification.
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
>>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>>>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
>>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>>>>>> justified.
>>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
>>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
>>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
>>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
>>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
>>> replying.

>> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
>> what you said. You said something needs to be
>> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
>> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
>> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
>> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
>> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
>>
>> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
>>
>>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>>>>> Stop projecting
>>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
>>> No - accurately describing

>> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and you
> snipped):


No, you STUPID, ARROGANT cocksucker. HERE is what
transpired. You wrote, "I said 'Maybe it
can be justified, maybe it can't', which is basically
not saying anything. You said 'What is there to
justify?', meaning, you think it obviously can be
justified." Your assignment of meaning to what he said
is WRONG, you stupid arrogant ****. What he said does
*not* mean he thinks it can be justified, rupie - what
he said means he doesn't think there is a moral
dimension to it.

You STUPID ****, rupie: there are two ways something
would not need to be morally justified. One is that it
is a moral issue that already has been justified, and
so does not need (any longer) to be justified. The
other way is that it is *not* a moral issue in the
first place, and so *never* needed justification. That
latter one is the sense the original poster meant.

You stupid, arrogant ****. You are wrong, but your
arrogance and monumental pride won't allow you to admit it.

Rupert 07-06-2007 02:43 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 11:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >>>>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
> >>>>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >>>>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >>>>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >>>>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
> >>>>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
> >>>> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
> >>>> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
> >>>> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
> >>>> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
> >>>> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
> >>> It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter
> >> It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
> >> You are a gutter dweller.

>
> > No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like

>
> It is your fault, rupie.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
> >>>>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> >>>>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
> >>>>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
> >>>> No.
> >>> Yep,
> >> No.

>
> >>>>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
> >>>> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
> >>>> all.
> >> Right.- Hide quoted text -

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


Yeah, right, Ball. I suppose it was my fault you called Lesley a
prostitute too. Maybe you're like the Party in Orwell's novel "1984".
You say "Actually, Rupert, it was you who called Lesley a prostitute",
and that makes it true. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.


Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 03:58 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>>>>>>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
>>>>>>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>>>>>>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>>>>>>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>>>>>>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
>>>>>>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
>>>>>> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
>>>>>> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
>>>>>> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
>>>>>> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
>>>>>> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
>>>>> It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter
>>>> It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
>>>> You are a gutter dweller.
>>> No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like

>> It is your fault, rupie.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
>>>>>>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
>>>>>>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
>>>>>>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> Yep,
>>>> No.
>>>>>>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
>>>>>> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
>>>>>> all.
>>>> Right.- Hide quoted text -

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

>
> Yeah, right


Right.

What the **** is wrong with you, prickcheese? Whey
can't you put up a post without mangling the **** out
of it?

Hagar[_2_] 07-06-2007 03:59 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

"chatnoir" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 5, 8:34 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman.
>> >> Ye
>> >> insinuated:

>>
>> >> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> >> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
>> >> >> terror
>> >> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
>> >> >> mewled:

>>
>> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and
>> >> >>>> live
>> >> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I
>> >> >>>> love for
>> >> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:

>>
>> >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>> >> om...
>> >> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>> >> >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:

>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>> >> >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
>> >> >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is
>> >> >>>>>>> unlikely
>> >> >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would
>> >> >>>>>>> not
>> >> >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>> >> >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment,
>> >> >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological
>> >> >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.

>>
>> >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
>> >> >>>>>> their bodies
>> >> >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that
>> >> >>>>>> they
>> >> >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
>> >> >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man
>> >> >>>>>> below
>> >> >>>>>> did or die horribly because the
>> >> >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:

>>
>> >> >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs

>>
>> >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate
>> >> >>>>>> will
>> >> >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?

>>
>> >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
>> >> >>>>>> the "moral commitment"?

>>
>> >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
>> >> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit

>>
>> >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I
>> >> >>>> was
>> >> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was
>> >> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also
>> >> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The
>> >> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced
>> >> >>>> with their own demise.

>>
>> >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
>> >> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most
>> >> >>> people
>> >> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay
>> >> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should.

>>
>> >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
>> >> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?

>>
>> >> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
>> >> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
>> >> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.

>>
>> >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful
>> >> anal
>> >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?

>>
>> > I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing.

>>
>> > Art Deco

>>
>> Correction: You are NOT a Grey Alien, but a *** Butt-Pirate who wants to
>> probe anyone's anal cavity, especially if they fall into that "little
>> boy"
>> age bracket.

>
> Art Deco as a Kid!:
>
> http://www.derfcity.com/o/scratch_my_butt.html
>


This is a job for the PuddleDuck, he sucks, he humps and he even scratches
DecoDicks derriere. It's the only way he can get any recognition in the
mystical realm of the k00kers, scratching his way to the top of the pile of
shit..



Art Deco[_2_] 07-06-2007 04:08 AM

FOAM ALERT: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Hagar > wrote:

>"chatnoir" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> On Jun 5, 8:34 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>>
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman.
>>> >> Ye
>>> >> insinuated:
>>>
>>> >> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> >> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The
>>> >> >> terror
>>> >> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye
>>> >> >> mewled:
>>>
>>> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> >> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and
>>> >> >>>> live
>>> >> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I
>>> >> >>>> love for
>>> >> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd:
>>>
>>> >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>> >> om...
>>> >> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>>> >> >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>> >> >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
>>> >> >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is
>>> >> >>>>>>> unlikely
>>> >> >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would
>>> >> >>>>>>> not
>>> >> >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>>> >> >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment,
>>> >> >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological
>>> >> >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
>>> >> >>>>>> their bodies
>>> >> >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that
>>> >> >>>>>> they
>>> >> >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
>>> >> >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man
>>> >> >>>>>> below
>>> >> >>>>>> did or die horribly because the
>>> >> >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate
>>> >> >>>>>> will
>>> >> >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
>>> >> >>>>>> the "moral commitment"?
>>>
>>> >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's
>>> >> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit
>>>
>>> >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I
>>> >> >>>> was
>>> >> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was
>>> >> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also
>>> >> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The
>>> >> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced
>>> >> >>>> with their own demise.
>>>
>>> >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should
>>> >> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most
>>> >> >>> people
>>> >> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay
>>> >> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should.
>>>
>>> >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a
>>> >> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"?
>>>
>>> >> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical
>>> >> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan
>>> >> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made.
>>>
>>> >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful
>>> >> anal
>>> >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist?
>>>
>>> > I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing.
>>>
>>> > Art Deco
>>>
>>> Correction: You are NOT a Grey Alien, but a *** Butt-Pirate who wants to
>>> probe anyone's anal cavity, especially if they fall into that "little
>>> boy"
>>> age bracket.

>>
>> Art Deco as a Kid!:
>>
>> http://www.derfcity.com/o/scratch_my_butt.html
>>

>
>This is a job for the PuddleDuck, he sucks, he humps and he even scratches
>DecoDicks derriere. It's the only way he can get any recognition in the
>mystical realm of the k00kers, scratching his way to the top of the pile of
>shit..


More Hagar FagFoam(tm) -- yes!

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist

"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"

Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 04:48 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
>> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
>> > tell me what you think of it?

>>
>> Where's the talk?

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/


OK, thanks. I have it open and will read it as time permits. I have an
immediate nit-pick on form rather than content. In the very first sentence,
" Some philosophers think that using animals in harmful ways in scientific
research is seriously wrong." I would omit the word "seriously" from this
sentence, it sounds amateurish and contributes nothing worthwhile to the
meaning. It sounds like you're eager to sway the listener with emotions
rather than simply convey ideas. It is a mistake to leave such an impression
so early in an essay. Don't bother to defend it to me, it's just a minor
observation which you can take or leave as you wish.


Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 05:25 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> groups.com...

>>
>> >> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument.
>> >> >> > It's
>> >> >> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one
>> >> >> > rational
>> >> >> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously
>> >> >> > no-one's
>> >> >> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their
>> >> >> > impact
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is
>> >> >> > nevertheless
>> >> >> > one reasonable step to take.

>>
>> >> >> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as
>> >> >> that,
>> >> >> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with
>> >> >> hard-core
>> >> >> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view.
>> >> >> It's
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
>> >> >> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely
>> >> >> "suggesting
>> >> >> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the
>> >> >> case
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione.

>>
>> >> > No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the
>> >> > basis
>> >> > of arguments other than the environmental argument.

>>
>> >> They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
>> >> portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral
>> >> avenue
>> >> available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.

>>
>> >> >> Not you
>> >> >> either, based on everything you've said.

>>
>> >> > Why not?

>>
>> >> Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
>> >> fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a
>> >> moderate
>> >> view of animal use. The two are incongruent.

>>
>> > What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?

>>
>> I didn't say they were wrong, I said that they are not moderate. Your
>> position reflects strong animal rights thinking, and therefore is not
>> congruent with moderate statements like the ones you posited above.

>
> My position is not inconsistent with the moderate statement I posted
> above. I do believe in that moderate statement and my position is not
> inconsistent with it.


That reply is consistent with your pattern of issuing empty denials when
something about your position is pointed out.

>
>> If one
>> believes that slavery is wrong then one does not "suggest that perhaps we
>> should cut down on the number of slaves we own".
>>

>
> I think that there are other arguments which have stronger outcomes
> than the environmental argument.


What does that mean? How does it answer what I said?

I acknowledge that there may well be
> some non-vegan diets which are at least as good as the typical vegan
> diet.


Then how can people of good will recommend veganism which forbids the
consumption of animals?

>
>> >> >> If you have decided to accept AR
>> >> >> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be
>> >> >> tolerant,
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas
>> >> >> interesting,
>> >> >> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many
>> >> >> questions
>> >> >> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the
>> >> >> very
>> >> >> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as
>> >> >> skeptical
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

>>
>> >> > The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
>> >> > accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not
>> >> > really
>> >> > saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

>>
>> >> That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this
>> >> can't
>> >> be
>> >> parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking
>> >> doesn't
>> >> really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
>> >> mathematics in that way.

>>
>> > Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
>> > thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
>> > understand.

>>
>> I agree, I have read some of your thesis, it's way above my head,
>> however,
>> as I just said, mathematics is not moral philosophy.
>>

>
> No, it's not, but you should be open to the possibility that there are
> some concepts in moral philosophy which take just a little bit of
> effort to understand if you're relatively new to the subject.


I'm not, I have been thinking about morality for many years.

Yes,
> you're right, I misread your statement, I think I read "like" instead
> of "unlike" for some reason.
>
>> > You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
>> > with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
>> > and with an open mind.

>>
>> I do have an open mind, but you have to learn how to articulate.
>>

>
> Well, maybe, but perhaps you could do me the favour of having some
> respect for the fact that I've spent a while studying the subject and
> I'm taking the trouble to impart my understanding of it to you. I
> mean, you don't have to think that I'm some sort of genius at moral
> philosophy and you should be privileged to talk to me, but you could
> at least listen politely and with an open mind and be open to the
> possibility that I may have a few things to teach you here. I mean,
> I'm sure there are some subjects you understand better than me. Maybe
> I'm deluding myself, maybe you're right that this is all just waffle,
> but you could at least just listen politely and refrain from calling
> from me a pseudo-intellectual. I mean, I find it a bit ironic that you
> take it upon yourself to criticize me for being condescending. I think
> you're a lot more condescending than me. Anyway, you seem to be
> concerned about raising the tone of this newsgroup, so why don't we
> try to have a conversation where we're not condescending to each
> other, where we assume good faith on each other's part, and it's about
> the issues, not the people? And I'll try to be as clear as I can.


I have already begun doing so, as I'm sure you have noticed.

>
>> >You asked me to explain how my views are

>>
>> > consistent with equal consideration,

>>
>> I did not, I asked how any life could be.
>>

>
> Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter Singer.
> There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.


Peter Singer admits that he is not sure if such a position can even exist
outside a discussion hall, if I recall correctly. That is my litmus test for
the validity of a theory.


>> > I said Peter Singer's views are,
>> > and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
>> > that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
>> > of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
>> > being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
>> > to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
>> > for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
>> > much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?

>>
>> What you don't get it is that what I am interested in is ideas that can
>> survive in the crucible of a real-world test, not endless rhetoric.
>>

>
> Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice? Do you
> know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.


Peter Singer is not opposed to animal use per se, so I'm not sure why you
actually consider him an example of your way of thinking.

>> >> > I see a problem with
>> >> > discriminating on the basis of species alone.

>>
>> >> That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you
>> >> mean
>> >> by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say
>> >> something
>> >> is a
>> >> problem?

>>
>> > There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
>> > mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
>> > my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.

>>
>> See, you didn't respond again.
>>

>
> Well, I pointed you to something which I thought might help to explain
> what I mean by "discrimination on the basis of species". It's a little
> bit tiresome, you telling me that my statements are "corrupt" and then
> complaining my supposed non-responsiveness. Can't you try and be a
> little more polite?


I didn't call YOU corrupt, I used the term in the more technical sense, the
argument is corrupt because the terminology is vague and unfocused. I asked
for clarification and you refused to give it.

>> >> Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
>> >> to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of
>> >> "injust
>> >> or unfair discrimination".

>>
>> > No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
>> > of discrimination needs justification.

>>
>> No it doesn't. You don't understand the meaning of the word.
>>

>
> Well, I beg to differ. See my talk.


>
>> > If species discrimination is
>> > not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
>> > to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
>> > hair isn't good enough.

>>
>> Why not, because you say so and you are a hot-shot? I never presented
>> that
>> as a definitive argument, but since you keep referring to it, why isn't
>> pointing out that we kill demodex mites good enough to show that we must
>> discriminate based on species?
>>

>
> Well, for one thing, it's very possible that demodex mites aren't
> sentient.


Yes, and..?

>> >> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
>> >> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
>> >> always equitably either.

>>
>> > Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
>> > species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
>> > without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.

>>
>> So you have frequently pointed out, but never explained.
>>

>
> I think I've said a bit by way of explaining it. Why don't you have a
> look at my talk?
>
>> >> Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
>> >> " It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances
>> >> and
>> >> ways
>> >> in which we would not harm other humans."

>>
>> > Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species.

>>
>> You had to insert a waffle into a perfectly clear statement, why?
>>

>
> It's not waffle, and it was a necessary qualification.


Why? I think that it completely muddied the waters. My statement was
comprised of clear unequivocal words conveying a clear unequivocal message.
You introduced the phrase "relevantly similar" which itself requires
explanation, introduces the possibility of equivocation, has no clear
meaning, and as far I can see contributes nothing positive. What is wrong
with my statement that it does not adequately convey your position?


>> Yes,
>>
>> > exactly. Thank you.

>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> >> The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
>> >> principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first
>> >> question
>> >> is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does
>> >> it
>> >> make
>> >> sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before
>> >> grasping
>> >> all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real
>> >> world.

>>
>> > All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
>> > of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans?

>>
>> We don't. The rights of profoundly retarded individuals are curtailed to
>> near zero, and their obligations as well. We do not charge such people
>> with
>> crimes regardless of their actions.
>>

>
> We give them a lot more rights than we give animals.


No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.

>That's the point.
> Why?


Because we choose to, because they're like us. Because "There but for the
grace of God go I." We empathize, we hope that others would do the same if
the tables were turned.

>> > The point is
>> > that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.

>>
>> You need to justify it perhaps, most of us do not. I don't need to
>> justify
>> discriminating between a chicken and a human any more than I need to
>> justify
>> discriminating between a mouse and a fly, or a spider and a banana. It's
>> just something I do naturally.
>>

>
> The task of moral philosophy is to think critically about this kind of
> thing.


I know, but accepting a contrarian view because it sounds good is not
critical thought. Accepting the accepted view is not uncritical thought.

>> >> > I acknowledge that it is
>> >> > a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
>> >> > theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You
>> >> > think
>> >> > it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I
>> >> > think
>> >> > your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what
>> >> > constitutes
>> >> > discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say
>> >> > that
>> >> > if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
>> >> > longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
>> >> > is definitely incorrect.

>>
>> >> You're relying on the most extreme example,

>>
>> > Well, it was *your* example.

>>
>> But not my only one, and you knew it.
>>
>> >> what about bees, spiders and
>> >> other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and
>> >> lizards
>> >> and
>> >> toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less
>> >> important
>> >> to
>> >> the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.

>>
>> > I wouldn't necessarily say that.

>>
>> You should, if you are really searching for the truth. Vegans constantly
>> make arguments why the death of the field mouse is less morally
>> significant
>> than the death of the chicken or cow, as if the animals cared.

>
> Well, I've never seen them. I don't agree with this contention.


Which contention, that there is a moral difference or that vegans make this
argument? If the latter, then you're wrong. The standard vegan response to
the revelation of collateral deaths is that even if a pound of rice caused
10 mouse deaths, a pound of game that causes 1/10 of a livestock animal
death is not preferable, because the livestock animal death is different in
kind (ie. accident vs deliberate). I have heard this argument in dozens of
forms from different vegans. My belief is that it is fundamentally and
logically unsound to extrapolate human political relationships to
animal-human relationships (the AR treatise). What is logical is that an
animal death is an animal death, if the motive is to obtain food, then there
is no real distinction.

>> I argue that
>> the deaths are morally equivalent, therefore it should be as important to
>> a
>> vegan to consume less, or make better choices among vegetarian fare, as
>> it
>> is to avoid animal products, but that is not the case. The avoidance of
>> animal products dwarfs all other concerns in the vegan mindset.
>>

>
> It should be important to be selective in one's choice of plant food
> if one had reliable information that this would make a significant
> difference.


I'm sure this *is* done to an extent, and there is information, such as
about organic and local produce. My point is that these choices are
considered trivial compared to the vegan rule which prohibits meat. This
shows irrational rigidity if it is viewed as anything more than preference,
in the light of collateral deaths.

>> >It's just that it's harder to do
>> > something about it.

>>
>> That should not make it any less significant, they die for the same
>> reason,
>> because we want food. Veganism suffers from myopia, it thinks too much of
>> it's own prime directive, which has been foisted upon it from the animal
>> rights movement.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That definitely shows you've got a long way

>>
>> >> > to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
>> >> > entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing
>> >> > this
>> >> > out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping
>> >> > you
>> >> > to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you
>> >> > need
>> >> > to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
>> >> > arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
>> >> > pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
>> >> > wrong.

>>
>> >> Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting
>> >> to
>> >> explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
>> >> shortcomings.

>>
>> >> I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought,
>> >> but I
>> >> would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first,
>> >> using
>> >> Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.

>>
>> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
>> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
>> > tell me what you think of it?

>>
>> I browsed some points there the other day, I'll have a look.

>
>




Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 05:31 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists
>> >> an
>> >> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true.
>> >> Since
>> >> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to
>> >> establish
>> >> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt
>> >> that,
>> >> but
>> >> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to
>> >> believe
>> >> in something like this.

>>
>> > Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
>> > precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to say
>> > and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all rubbish.
>> > I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I think
>> > DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on those
>> > who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.

>>
>> Well, that's not a very compelling commentary either. I think he does an
>> inadequate job of it, his arguments just go in circles endlessly. I
>> suspect
>> he could have recited Mary had a little lamb and you would have found it
>> convincing.

>
> Well, that's not true at all. I read it critically and found it
> convincing.


How do you know that you didn't find it convincing because you already
believed that it is a compelling theory? How does one read something
critically when you're an avid cheerleader?

> Evidently you didn't respond the same way. Fine, what are
> your criticisms of it?


I found that it went in circles, stating premises and using them to move to
the next argument. He nver even defines the concept clearly. He admits that
is a problem, but soldiers on anyway. You think that's just a hurdle to be
overcome, I think that is a major deal-buster.

You now, in your own words, what about his argument is compelling?


Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 05:41 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
>> >> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
>> >> > were replying.

>>
>> >> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
>> >> the
>> >> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of
>> >> lions
>> >> and
>> >> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
>> >> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.

>>
>> > Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
>> > about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
>> > some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
>> > point in moral philosophy.

>>
>> >> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that
>> >> > we
>> >> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
>> >> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
>> >> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
>> >> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
>> >> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that
>> >> > as
>> >> > a more important issue).

>>
>> >> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
>> >> earlier,
>> >> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals
>> >> for
>> >> the
>> >> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
>> >> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
>> >> clothing
>> >> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to
>> >> be
>> >> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
>> >> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?

>>
>> > Both require some justification.

>>
>> Food, what better justification could there be?
>>

>
> That's a totally inadequate justification.


Why? Most ARA supporters admit that if faced with death we could justify
killing an animal to eat it. Well, if we don't eat we are faced with death,
therefore we can use that same justification. Given that argriculture kills
animals whether animals form part of the end product or not, why does that
justification not apply? Surely you can see that what we are reduced to at
this point is either a numbers contest or an esoteric exercise in moral
philosophy, not a serious moral debate.

>> > A form of agriculture which causes
>> > less harm might be easier to justify.

>>
>> Easier to justify than food?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > I said "Maybe it
>> >> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>> >> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you
>> >> >> > think
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.

>>
>> >> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> asks,
>> >> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if
>> >> >> people
>> >> >> kill
>> >> >> animals to eat?"

>>
>> >> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is
>> >> > there
>> >> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
>> >> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in
>> >> > seriously
>> >> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
>> >> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>>
>> >> You're constantly condescending towards people,

>
> You have some nerve criticizing me for being condescending.


Why? You are.

>> implying they're not
>> >> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any
>> >> substance
>> >> yourself.

>>
>> > I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
>> > people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
>> > pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
>> > here, which they have never really adequately responded to.

>>
>> If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.

>
> I've made plenty of such points to Jon Ball in this very thread. Have
> another read.


Neither of you snip, so your exchanges are unreadable. I'll wait with bated
breath for one of these good points to come along again, surely it won't
take too long.




Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 05:50 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 6, 5:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at
>> >> > serious
>> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>>
>> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being
>> >> serious
>> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious
>> >> debate,
>> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>> >> demoninator mudslinging contests.

>>
>> > Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.

>>
>> You're a willing participant.
>>

>
> Yes, but I am much better-behaved than just about everyone here,
> including you.
>
>> >> Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
>> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
>> >> condescension
>> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
>> >> gutter.

>>
>> > Jon provides flawed arguments, I provide him with reasoned responses.

>>
>> Hardly.
>>

>
> No, what I said is quite correct.


No, you talk like you're trying to sound erudite, not like someone who knows
what they're talking about.

>> > I am occasionally condescending, but only as tit-for-tat.

>>
>> Always the victim eh Rupert? yawn...

>
> I'm just stating a fact, it's nothing to do with being a victim? Who
> the hell do you think you are, calling me condescending? You tell me I
> engage in "verbal diarrhoea" and am a "psuedo-intellectual". You are
> much more condescending than me.


Direct, outright insults are not condescension. Condescension is a
prat-icular form of patronizing attitude, which you display.



Dutch[_2_] 07-06-2007 05:53 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at
>> >> > serious
>> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>>
>> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being
>> >> serious
>> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious
>> >> debate,
>> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>> >> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it
>> >> with
>> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
>> >> condescension
>> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
>> >> gutter.

>>
>> > I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
>> > am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
>> > into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
>> > certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
>> > give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
>> > condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
>> > really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
>> > him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
>> > DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
>> > him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
>> > responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
>> > pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
>> > understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

>>
>> I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is incomprehensible
>> to
>> anyone who is attempting to read it critically.
>>

>
> Fine, that's your view. I have come to a different view.


Which you have never expounded on in any detail whatsoever. Yet you imply
that your agreement with him, your alleged comprehension, endows your
position with dredence.

>> > If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
>> > quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
>> > need improving.

>>
>> Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)

>
> I think there are some fairly obvious different between us two.


Did you miss the irony in your use of the word discriminate?


Rupert 07-06-2007 08:55 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> >>>>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000 prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
> >>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> >>>>>>>>>>> justification.
> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
> >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
> >>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >>>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> >>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> >>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> >>>>>> justified.
> >>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
> >>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
> >>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
> >>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
> >>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
> >>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> >>> replying.
> >> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
> >> what you said. You said something needs to be
> >> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
> >> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
> >> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
> >> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
> >> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.

>
> >> You're stupid - terminally stupid.

>
> >>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
> >>>>> Stop projecting
> >>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
> >>> No - accurately describing
> >> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and you
> > snipped):

>
> No, you STUPID, ARROGANT cocksucker. HERE is what
> transpired. You wrote, "I said 'Maybe it
> can be justified, maybe it can't', which is basically
> not saying anything. You said 'What is there to
> justify?', meaning, you think it obviously can be
> justified." Your assignment of meaning to what he said
> is WRONG, you stupid arrogant ****.


Blah blah blah....

This is a different issue, Ball.

And I was right: he *does* think it obviously can be justified.
Otherwise he would have to think it is not justified, which he clearly
doesn't.

> What he said does
> *not* mean he thinks it can be justified, rupie - what
> he said means he doesn't think there is a moral
> dimension to it.
>


That implies that it can be justified. I already explained this. You
should really try to listen.

> You STUPID ****, rupie: there are two ways something
> would not need to be morally justified. One is that it
> is a moral issue that already has been justified, and
> so does not need (any longer) to be justified. The
> other way is that it is *not* a moral issue in the
> first place, and so *never* needed justification. That
> latter one is the sense the original poster meant.
>


Saying "it doesn't need justification" is just saying "there is no
burden of proof on someone who claim it is justified". Either
something is morally justified or it isn't. Kadaitcha Man clearly
doesn't think that it isn't morally justified, so he thinks that it
is.

> You stupid, arrogant ****. You are wrong, but your
> arrogance and monumental pride won't allow you to admit it.


Yes, yes. There there now.


Kadaitcha Man[_2_] 07-06-2007 11:28 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert > Thou woman's frock. Hang yourself, you
muddy conger. Ye harangued:
> On Jun 7, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thou grey iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thou rotten, ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thou damnable fellow. Ye afforded:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides they want to explore the health benefits of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a moral barrier to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making such a change, that would not even come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment, which is most of them, is very likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have psychological barriers or hangups
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preventing them from starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover that their bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that they will die horrible deaths over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose that they must do what the man below did or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> die horribly because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innate will to live thereby ****ing off their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what value is the "moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are probably quite a few things most of us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would do if the only alternative was to die a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> horrible death. So what's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to simply accept to live in a state of diminished
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health? When are we permitted to allow our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-interest to take precendence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murder to save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow animals to die if it came right down to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if push came to shove if they were really in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-threatening situation. But yeah, okay, we probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more willing to allow animals to die. And, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference can be justified in one way or another. See,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the thing, you think "equal consideration" means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill demodex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our culture. Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of justification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said
>>>>>>>>>>> "Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't", which is
>>>>>>>>>>> basically not saying anything. You said "What is there to
>>>>>>>>>>> justify?", meaning, you think it obviously can be justified
>>>>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all.
>>>>>>>>>> The question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral
>>>>>>>>> dimension to it.
>>>>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>>>>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>>>>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>>>>>>>> justified.
>>>>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
>>>>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
>>>>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
>>>>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
>>>>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>>>>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
>>>>> replying.
>>>> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
>>>> what you said. You said something needs to be
>>>> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
>>>> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
>>>> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
>>>> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
>>>> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.

>>
>>>> You're stupid - terminally stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>>>>>>> Stop projecting
>>>>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
>>>>> No - accurately describing
>>>> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -

>>
>>> Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and
>>> you snipped):

>>
>> No, you STUPID, ARROGANT cocksucker. HERE is what
>> transpired. You wrote, "I said 'Maybe it
>> can be justified, maybe it can't', which is basically
>> not saying anything. You said 'What is there to
>> justify?', meaning, you think it obviously can be
>> justified." Your assignment of meaning to what he said
>> is WRONG, you stupid arrogant ****.

>
> Blah blah blah....
>
> This is a different issue, Ball.
>
> And I was right: he *does* think it obviously can be justified.


Bullshit. Don't speak for me, you lying ****stain; speak only for yourself.
It does not need to be justified.

> Otherwise he would have to think it is not justified, which he clearly
> doesn't.
>
>> What he said does
>> *not* mean he thinks it can be justified, rupie - what
>> he said means he doesn't think there is a moral
>> dimension to it.
>>

>
> That implies that it can be justified. I already explained this. You
> should really try to listen.
>
>> You STUPID ****, rupie: there are two ways something
>> would not need to be morally justified. One is that it
>> is a moral issue that already has been justified, and
>> so does not need (any longer) to be justified. The
>> other way is that it is *not* a moral issue in the
>> first place, and so *never* needed justification. That
>> latter one is the sense the original poster meant.
>>

>
> Saying "it doesn't need justification" is just saying "there is no
> burden of proof on someone who claim it is justified". Either
> something is morally justified or it isn't. Kadaitcha Man clearly
> doesn't think that it isn't morally justified, so he thinks that it
> is.
>
>> You stupid, arrogant ****. You are wrong, but your
>> arrogance and monumental pride won't allow you to admit it.

>
> Yes, yes. There there now.


--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in

Jij bent een half afgerukte in de kanker gerukte maaghoer.

dh@. 07-06-2007 03:37 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:12:23 -0700, pearl > wrote:

>On Jun 5, 12:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>..
>> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat.

>
>'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp
>diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen
>spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing
>chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and
>examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also
>found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey"
>- this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal
>variations in the chimp diet.

.. . .
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
ever documented at Gombe. Two hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of
them swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus monkeys. The male chimps
chased and shook the monkeys from trees, eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's
eyes, a large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and "dispatched it with
a bite to the skull." The chimp then approached a swollen female with the carcass,
dangling it just out of her reach until she presented her swelling. Only after copulation
did the male share his food.

"An important issue today in human male-female relationships is control," Stanford said.
"What we're seeing is the evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual attempt to manipulate
and control. Male chimps are using meat to control female behavior and female chimps
are making use of their reproductive system to get meat."
[...]
http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/new...tml/chimp.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
We might look toward the social aspects of chimpanzee societies to understand their hunting
patterns. One clue to the significance of meat in a chimpanzee society comes from the observation
that males do most of the hunting. During the past decade, adult and adolescent males made over 90
percent of the kills at Gombe. Although females occasionally hunt, they more often receive a share of
meat from the male who captured the prey.

This state of affairs sets up an interesting dynamic between males and females. Sometimes a begging
female does not receive any meat until after the male copulates with her (even while clutching the
freshly killed carcass). Some other observations are also telling. Not only does the size of a hunting
party increase in proportion to the number of estrous females present, but the presence of an estrous
female independently increases the likelihood that there will be a hunt. Such observations suggest that
male chimpanzees use meat as a tool to gain access to sexually receptive females. But females appear
to be getting reproductive benefits as well: William McGrew of Miami University in Ohio showed that
female chimpanzees at Gombe that receive generous shares of meat produce more offspring that
survive.

The distribution of the kill to other male chimpanzees also hints at another social role for meat. The
Japanese primatologist Toshisada Nishida and his colleagues in the Mahale Mountains showed that
the alpha male Ntilogi distributes meat to his allies but consistently withholds it from his rivals. Such
behavior, they suggest, reveals that meat can be used as a political tool in chimpanzee society.
Further studies should tell us whether such actions have consequences for alliances between males.
[...]
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/article...ford-full.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 03:51 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
>>>>>>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>>>>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>>>>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
>>>>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>>>>>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>>>>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>>>>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>>>>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>>>>>>>> justified.
>>>>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
>>>>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
>>>>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
>>>>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
>>>>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>>>>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
>>>>> replying.
>>>> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
>>>> what you said. You said something needs to be
>>>> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
>>>> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
>>>> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
>>>> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
>>>> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
>>>> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
>>>>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>>>>>>> Stop projecting
>>>>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
>>>>> No - accurately describing
>>>> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and you
>>> snipped):

>> No, you STUPID, ARROGANT cocksucker. HERE is what
>> transpired. You wrote, "I said 'Maybe it
>> can be justified, maybe it can't', which is basically
>> not saying anything. You said 'What is there to
>> justify?', meaning, you think it obviously can be
>> justified." Your assignment of meaning to what he said
>> is WRONG, you stupid arrogant ****.

>
> Blah blah blah....


rupie concedes. Good - you ****ed up, again.


> And I was right: he *does* think it obviously can be justified.


You are *WRONG*, rupie. He *clearly* thinks it is not
a moral issue at all, and thus "justification" is not
needed. Resolution of issues with moral dimensions
requires moral justification; resolution of issues
lacking moral dimensions requires no moral
justification at all. He believes the issue being
addressed has no moral dimension to it, and thus his
rhetorical question: "What is there to justify?"

You're wrong, rupie. But you have such a towering,
youthful, arrogant ego that you can't admit it.


>> What he said does
>> *not* mean he thinks it can be justified, rupie - what
>> he said means he doesn't think there is a moral
>> dimension to it.
>>

>
> That implies that it can be justified.


No. Only issues with moral dimensions require moral
justification for the resolution of the issue, rupie.
You are wrong.


> I already explained this.


You got it wrong, rupie, as I conclusive demonstrated.


>> You STUPID ****, rupie: there are two ways something
>> would not need to be morally justified. One is that it
>> is a moral issue that already has been justified, and
>> so does not need (any longer) to be justified. The
>> other way is that it is *not* a moral issue in the
>> first place, and so *never* needed justification. That
>> latter one is the sense the original poster meant.
>>

>
> Saying "it doesn't need justification" is just saying "there is no
> burden of proof on someone who claim it is justified". Either
> something is morally justified or it isn't.


NO, rupie. If there is no moral dimension, then there
is no requirement for moral justification. You have
committed a logical fallacy, rupie: false bifurcation.
One of many.


> Kadaitcha Man clearly
> doesn't think that it isn't morally justified, so he thinks that it
> is.


False. K.M. clearly thinks that there is no moral
dimension to it, thus he gives no further thought to
whether it is morally justified or not because to do so
is absurd. You, rupie, with your psychotic attachment
to logical fallacies like false bifurcation, can't let
go of your error.


>> You stupid, arrogant ****. You are wrong, but your
>> arrogance and monumental pride won't allow you to admit it.

>
> Yes, yes.


Yes.

Rudy Canoza[_1_] 07-06-2007 04:01 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:12:23 -0700, pearl > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 5, 12:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> ..
>>> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat.

>> 'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp
>> diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen
>> spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing
>> chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and
>> examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also
>> found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey"
>> - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal
>> variations in the chimp diet.


That is, it was a preliminary, incomplete, inconclusive
study whose conclusion was subsequently refuted by
later, more thorough research.

Today, all "primatologists" accept that chimpanzees eat
meat - period. This is considered a well-documented fact.


_________________________
> [...]
> In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
> ever documented at Gombe. Two hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of
> them swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus monkeys. The male chimps
> chased and shook the monkeys from trees, eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's
> eyes, a large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and "dispatched it with
> a bite to the skull." The chimp then approached a swollen female with the carcass,
> dangling it just out of her reach until she presented her swelling. Only after copulation
> did the male share his food.
>
> "An important issue today in human male-female relationships is control," Stanford said.
> "What we're seeing is the evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual attempt to manipulate
> and control. Male chimps are using meat to control female behavior and female chimps
> are making use of their reproductive system to get meat."
> [...]
> http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/new...tml/chimp.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> We might look toward the social aspects of chimpanzee societies to understand their hunting
> patterns. One clue to the significance of meat in a chimpanzee society comes from the observation
> that males do most of the hunting. During the past decade, adult and adolescent males made over 90
> percent of the kills at Gombe. Although females occasionally hunt, they more often receive a share of
> meat from the male who captured the prey.
>
> This state of affairs sets up an interesting dynamic between males and females. Sometimes a begging
> female does not receive any meat until after the male copulates with her (even while clutching the
> freshly killed carcass). Some other observations are also telling. Not only does the size of a hunting
> party increase in proportion to the number of estrous females present, but the presence of an estrous
> female independently increases the likelihood that there will be a hunt. Such observations suggest that
> male chimpanzees use meat as a tool to gain access to sexually receptive females. But females appear
> to be getting reproductive benefits as well: William McGrew of Miami University in Ohio showed that
> female chimpanzees at Gombe that receive generous shares of meat produce more offspring that
> survive.
>
> The distribution of the kill to other male chimpanzees also hints at another social role for meat. The
> Japanese primatologist Toshisada Nishida and his colleagues in the Mahale Mountains showed that
> the alpha male Ntilogi distributes meat to his allies but consistently withholds it from his rivals. Such
> behavior, they suggest, reveals that meat can be used as a political tool in chimpanzee society.
> Further studies should tell us whether such actions have consequences for alliances between males.
> [...]
> http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/article...ford-full.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


Be all that as it may, ****wit, it has no bearing on
the fact that animals do not "benefit" by coming into
existence. Your absurd demand for "consideration" to
be given to their lives has been revealed for what it
is: an insistence that livestock animals "ought" to
exist, for some absurd moral reason you've fabricated.

El Guapo 07-06-2007 07:16 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 6, 9:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> >> Where's the talk?

>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

>
> OK, thanks. I have it open and will read it as time permits. I have an
> immediate nit-pick on form rather than content. In the very first sentence,
> " Some philosophers think that using animals in harmful ways in scientific
> research is seriously wrong." I would omit the word "seriously" from this
> sentence, it sounds amateurish and contributes nothing worthwhile to the
> meaning. It sounds like you're eager to sway the listener with emotions
> rather than simply convey ideas. It is a mistake to leave such an impression
> so early in an essay. Don't bother to defend it to me, it's just a minor
> observation which you can take or leave as you wish.


**** off Douche.

It was ELEGANT!!



El Guapo 07-06-2007 07:19 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 6, 6:51 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> > >>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> > >>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
> > >>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> > >>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> > >>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> > >>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
> > >>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
> > >> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
> > >> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
> > >> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
> > >> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
> > >> the same attributes attaching to your choice.

>
> > > It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter

>
> > It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
> > You are a gutter dweller.

>
> No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like *you*, Ball.
> You are the gutter dweller.
>
> The nerve of you suggesting that it is my fault is a new height of
> absurdity you have reached.




Not surprising since he constantly practices his absurdities in front
of a mirror so he'll be ready for the BIG time on usenet.






>
>
>
> > >>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
> > >>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> > >>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
> > >>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
> > >> No.

>
> > > Yep,

>
> > No.

>
> > >>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
> > >> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
> > >> all.

>
> > Right.- Hide quoted text -

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

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




El Guapo 07-06-2007 07:21 PM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 6, 7:10 pm, Rudy Canoza the 300 lb. GOOBER whimpering over his
PPP syndrome managed to blubber through his tears:

> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >>>>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
> >>>>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >>>>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >>>>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >>>>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
> >>>>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.
> >>>> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
> >>>> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
> >>>> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
> >>>> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
> >>>> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
> >>> It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter
> >> It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
> >> You are a gutter dweller.

>
> > No, it is not my fault. It is the fault of people like

>
> It is your fault, rupie.



EXPLAIN that in detail Goo.

We need to know the facts.






>
>
>
> >>>>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
> >>>>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> >>>>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
> >>>>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,
> >>>> No.
> >>> Yep,
> >> No.

>
> >>>>> I provide him with reasoned responses.
> >>>> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
> >>>> all.
> >> Right.- Hide quoted text -

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




Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 02:12 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
>> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
>> > tell me what you think of it?

>>
>> Where's the talk?

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>



The argument from marginal cases or "AMC", you're reinventing the wheel a
bit.
http://facta.junis.ni.ac.yu/facta/pa...as2006-05n.pdf


Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 02:46 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
>> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
>> > tell me what you think of it?

>>
>> Where's the talk?

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>



You may want to read this also
http://folk.uio.no/jonw/moralstat99.doc
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral
status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them? It argues for
a biocentric answer which ascribes inherent moral status value to all
individual living organisms. This position must be defended against an
anthropocentric position. The argument from marginal cases propounded by Tom
Regan and Peter Singer for this purpose is criticised as defective, and a
different argument is proposed. The biocentric position developed here is
related to that of Albert Schweitzer and Paul F Taylor, but rejects their
assumption of equal inherent value for all living organisms. It argues
instead for equal moral status value for moral persons and agents, and
gradual moral status value for nonpersons, depending on their degree of
similarity with moral persons. Mary Ann Warren's recent book on Moral Status
is also discussed. The argument is constructed as a casuistic argument,
proceeding by analogical extension from persons to non-persons. The
meta-ethical question of its pragmatic validity is discussed.


Rupert 08-06-2007 03:56 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 8, 12:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 7, 10:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
> >>>>>>>>>>>> iniquity. Ye jabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly lost soul. Ye spat:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g20 00prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bodies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did or die horribly because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commitment"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it came right down to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is there to justify?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> justification.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>>>>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>>>>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>>>>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
> >>>>>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >>>>>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> >>>>>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> >>>>>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> >>>>>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> >>>>>>>> justified.
> >>>>>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.
> >>>>>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
> >>>>>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
> >>>>>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
> >>>>>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
> >>>>> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> >>>>> replying.
> >>>> Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
> >>>> what you said. You said something needs to be
> >>>> justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
> >>>> nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
> >>>> contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
> >>>> ****. "Something needs to be justified" is
> >>>> contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.
> >>>> You're stupid - terminally stupid.
> >>>>>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
> >>>>>>> Stop projecting
> >>>>>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
> >>>>> No - accurately describing
> >>>> rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Just to make things easier for you Ball, here's what I wrote (and you
> >>> snipped):
> >> No, you STUPID, ARROGANT cocksucker. HERE is what
> >> transpired. You wrote, "I said 'Maybe it
> >> can be justified, maybe it can't', which is basically
> >> not saying anything. You said 'What is there to
> >> justify?', meaning, you think it obviously can be
> >> justified." Your assignment of meaning to what he said
> >> is WRONG, you stupid arrogant ****.

>
> > Blah blah blah....

>
> rupie concedes. Good - you ****ed up, again.
>
> > And I was right: he *does* think it obviously can be justified.

>
> You are *WRONG*, rupie. He *clearly* thinks it is not
> a moral issue at all, and thus "justification" is not
> needed.


That does not contradict what I said. If you don't think something is
unjustifiable, then you think it can be justified. Saying "it doesn't
need to be justified" is just another way of saying "there is no
burden of proof on someone who claims it's justified". Yes, I agree,
he thinks it doesn't need to be justified, but he also thinks it is
justified, in the sense that he thinks it's morally permissible.


> Resolution of issues with moral dimensions
> requires moral justification; resolution of issues
> lacking moral dimensions requires no moral
> justification at all. He believes the issue being
> addressed has no moral dimension to it, and thus his
> rhetorical question: "What is there to justify?"
>
> You're wrong, rupie. But you have such a towering,
> youthful, arrogant ego that you can't admit it.
>


Do you have any inkling of why I find this quite amusing, Ball? Think
carefully now.

> >> What he said does
> >> *not* mean he thinks it can be justified, rupie - what
> >> he said means he doesn't think there is a moral
> >> dimension to it.

>
> > That implies that it can be justified.

>
> No. Only issues with moral dimensions require moral
> justification for the resolution of the issue, rupie.
> You are wrong.
>
> > I already explained this.

>
> You got it wrong, rupie, as I conclusive demonstrated.
>
> >> You STUPID ****, rupie: there are two ways something
> >> would not need to be morally justified. One is that it
> >> is a moral issue that already has been justified, and
> >> so does not need (any longer) to be justified. The
> >> other way is that it is *not* a moral issue in the
> >> first place, and so *never* needed justification. That
> >> latter one is the sense the original poster meant.

>
> > Saying "it doesn't need justification" is just saying "there is no
> > burden of proof on someone who claim it is justified". Either
> > something is morally justified or it isn't.

>
> NO, rupie. If there is no moral dimension, then there
> is no requirement for moral justification. You have
> committed a logical fallacy, rupie: false bifurcation.
> One of many.
>
> > Kadaitcha Man clearly
> > doesn't think that it isn't morally justified, so he thinks that it
> > is.

>
> False. K.M. clearly thinks that there is no moral
> dimension to it, thus he gives no further thought to
> whether it is morally justified or not because to do so
> is absurd. You, rupie, with your psychotic attachment
> to logical fallacies like false bifurcation, can't let
> go of your error.
>
> >> You stupid, arrogant ****. You are wrong, but your
> >> arrogance and monumental pride won't allow you to admit it.

>
> > Yes, yes.

>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




Rupert 08-06-2007 03:58 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> groups.com...

>
> >> > On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
> >> >> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
> >> >> > were replying.

>
> >> >> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
> >> >> the
> >> >> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of
> >> >> lions
> >> >> and
> >> >> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
> >> >> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.

>
> >> > Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
> >> > about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
> >> > some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
> >> > point in moral philosophy.

>
> >> >> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
> >> >> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
> >> >> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
> >> >> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
> >> >> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > a more important issue).

>
> >> >> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
> >> >> earlier,
> >> >> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals
> >> >> for
> >> >> the
> >> >> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
> >> >> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
> >> >> clothing
> >> >> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to
> >> >> be
> >> >> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
> >> >> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?

>
> >> > Both require some justification.

>
> >> Food, what better justification could there be?

>
> > That's a totally inadequate justification.

>
> Why? Most ARA supporters admit that if faced with death we could justify
> killing an animal to eat it. Well, if we don't eat we are faced with death,
> therefore we can use that same justification.


Not for modern methods of farming animal products, obviously.

> Given that argriculture kills
> animals whether animals form part of the end product or not, why does that
> justification not apply?


Because there is some limit to the amount of suffering you are
justified in causing.

> Surely you can see that what we are reduced to at
> this point is either a numbers contest or an esoteric exercise in moral
> philosophy, not a serious moral debate.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > A form of agriculture which causes
> >> > less harm might be easier to justify.

>
> >> Easier to justify than food?

>
> >> >> >> > I said "Maybe it
> >> >> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >> >> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you
> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.

>
> >> >> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> asks,
> >> >> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if
> >> >> >> people
> >> >> >> kill
> >> >> >> animals to eat?"

>
> >> >> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
> >> >> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in
> >> >> > seriously
> >> >> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
> >> >> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>
> >> >> You're constantly condescending towards people,

>
> > You have some nerve criticizing me for being condescending.

>
> Why? You are.
>


To some extent, perhaps, but clearly much less so than you.

> >> implying they're not
> >> >> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any
> >> >> substance
> >> >> yourself.

>
> >> > I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
> >> > people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
> >> > pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
> >> > here, which they have never really adequately responded to.

>
> >> If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.

>
> > I've made plenty of such points to Jon Ball in this very thread. Have
> > another read.

>
> Neither of you snip, so your exchanges are unreadable. I'll wait with bated
> breath for one of these good points to come along again, surely it won't
> take too long.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




Rupert 08-06-2007 04:07 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> groups.com...

>
> >> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at
> >> >> > serious
> >> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>
> >> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being
> >> >> serious
> >> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious
> >> >> debate,
> >> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >> >> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it
> >> >> with
> >> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
> >> >> condescension
> >> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
> >> >> gutter.

>
> >> > I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
> >> > am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
> >> > into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
> >> > certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
> >> > give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
> >> > condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
> >> > really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
> >> > him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
> >> > DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
> >> > him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
> >> > responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
> >> > pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
> >> > understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

>
> >> I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is incomprehensible
> >> to
> >> anyone who is attempting to read it critically.

>
> > Fine, that's your view. I have come to a different view.

>
> Which you have never expounded on in any detail whatsoever.


False.

> Yet you imply
> that your agreement with him, your alleged comprehension, endows your
> position with dredence.
>


Not at all. Just because I agree with him about some things is no
reason why my position is any more credible. I have been trying to
explain his ideas to you, I have obviously failed. You think it's my
fault, well, that's probably not an entirely objective matter, is it?

> >> > If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
> >> > quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
> >> > need improving.

>
> >> Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)

>
> > I think there are some fairly obvious different between us two.

>
> Did you miss the irony in your use of the word discriminate?


I saw the joke, yes, but no, any irony has escaped me.


Rupert 08-06-2007 04:09 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 8, 11:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> >> Where's the talk?

>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

>
> The argument from marginal cases or "AMC", you're reinventing the wheel a
> bit.http://facta.junis.ni.ac.yu/facta/pa...as2006-05n.pdf


Yeah, I know, I'm certainly not suggesting that this argument is
original. It's an exploration of the argument from marginal cases,
that's right.


Rupert 08-06-2007 04:09 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 8, 11:46 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> >> Where's the talk?

>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

>
> You may want to read this alsohttp://folk.uio.no/jonw/moralstat99.doc
> ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral
> status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them? It argues for
> a biocentric answer which ascribes inherent moral status value to all
> individual living organisms. This position must be defended against an
> anthropocentric position. The argument from marginal cases propounded by Tom
> Regan and Peter Singer for this purpose is criticised as defective, and a
> different argument is proposed. The biocentric position developed here is
> related to that of Albert Schweitzer and Paul F Taylor, but rejects their
> assumption of equal inherent value for all living organisms. It argues
> instead for equal moral status value for moral persons and agents, and
> gradual moral status value for nonpersons, depending on their degree of
> similarity with moral persons. Mary Ann Warren's recent book on Moral Status
> is also discussed. The argument is constructed as a casuistic argument,
> proceeding by analogical extension from persons to non-persons. The
> meta-ethical question of its pragmatic validity is discussed.


Sure, that looks interesting, I'll take a look.


Rupert 08-06-2007 04:11 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 2:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists
> >> >> an
> >> >> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true.
> >> >> Since
> >> >> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to
> >> >> establish
> >> >> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt
> >> >> that,
> >> >> but
> >> >> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to
> >> >> believe
> >> >> in something like this.

>
> >> > Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
> >> > precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to say
> >> > and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all rubbish.
> >> > I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I think
> >> > DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on those
> >> > who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.

>
> >> Well, that's not a very compelling commentary either. I think he does an
> >> inadequate job of it, his arguments just go in circles endlessly. I
> >> suspect
> >> he could have recited Mary had a little lamb and you would have found it
> >> convincing.

>
> > Well, that's not true at all. I read it critically and found it
> > convincing.

>
> How do you know that you didn't find it convincing because you already
> believed that it is a compelling theory? How does one read something
> critically when you're an avid cheerleader?
>


Well, I guess you don't, but I do. And I thought we were going to stop
being condescending to each other.

> > Evidently you didn't respond the same way. Fine, what are
> > your criticisms of it?

>
> I found that it went in circles, stating premises and using them to move to
> the next argument. He nver even defines the concept clearly. He admits that
> is a problem, but soldiers on anyway. You think that's just a hurdle to be
> overcome, I think that is a major deal-buster.
>
> You now, in your own words, what about his argument is compelling?


Okay, well, I'll maybe say a little about that later on, but just
briefly, I don't agree with you that the lack of clarity in the
central concept is such as to raise serious problems for the argument.
That's the fundamental point of contention between me and you.


Rupert 08-06-2007 04:16 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 1:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> >> Where's the talk?

>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

>
> OK, thanks. I have it open and will read it as time permits. I have an
> immediate nit-pick on form rather than content. In the very first sentence,
> " Some philosophers think that using animals in harmful ways in scientific
> research is seriously wrong." I would omit the word "seriously" from this
> sentence, it sounds amateurish and contributes nothing worthwhile to the
> meaning. It sounds like you're eager to sway the listener with emotions
> rather than simply convey ideas. It is a mistake to leave such an impression
> so early in an essay. Don't bother to defend it to me, it's just a minor
> observation which you can take or leave as you wish.


Just so you know, the guy who used to do the talk before me was a
friend of mine called John Hadley (he can't do the talk any more
because he's taken a job at Charles Sturt University) and the title of
his talk was "Why (some philosophers think) using animals in research
is seriously wrong." I thought it was a good title so I borrowed his
words in my opening sentence.


Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 04:55 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 7, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>> >> Food, what better justification could there be?

>>
>> > That's a totally inadequate justification.

>>
>> Why? Most ARA supporters admit that if faced with death we could justify
>> killing an animal to eat it. Well, if we don't eat we are faced with
>> death,
>> therefore we can use that same justification.

>
> Not for modern methods of farming animal products, obviously.


What does that mean?

>> Given that argriculture kills
>> animals whether animals form part of the end product or not, why does
>> that
>> justification not apply?

>
> Because there is some limit to the amount of suffering you are
> justified in causing.


There are a number of problems with that. First, you must demonstrate that
there is a limit, second, you must define where that limit lies, and
finally, you must deal with the eventuality that a non-vegan food choice
might trump a vegan food choice in some cases. In my view none of these
issues can be dealt with, leaving us to conclude, as I have, that there is
no valid basis for veganism based on animal death and suffering, not as it
presently exists.

>> Surely you can see that what we are reduced to at
>> this point is either a numbers contest or an esoteric exercise in moral
>> philosophy, not a serious moral debate.


[..]


Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 05:00 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 7, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> groups.com...

>>
>> >> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at
>> >> >> > serious
>> >> >> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>>
>> >> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being
>> >> >> serious
>> >> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious
>> >> >> debate,
>> >> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest
>> >> >> common
>> >> >> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
>> >> >> condescension
>> >> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the
>> >> >> same
>> >> >> gutter.

>>
>> >> > I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time
>> >> > I
>> >> > am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
>> >> > into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
>> >> > certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
>> >> > give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
>> >> > condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it,
>> >> > but
>> >> > really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't
>> >> > understand
>> >> > him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
>> >> > DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to
>> >> > understand
>> >> > him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
>> >> > responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me
>> >> > a
>> >> > pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
>> >> > understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

>>
>> >> I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is
>> >> incomprehensible
>> >> to
>> >> anyone who is attempting to read it critically.

>>
>> > Fine, that's your view. I have come to a different view.

>>
>> Which you have never expounded on in any detail whatsoever.

>
> False.


No, true. All you have ever done is instruct me to get the book and read it,
then repeat ad nauseum that you agree with his findings, followed by demands
that others disprove his theories.

>> Yet you imply
>> that your agreement with him, your alleged comprehension, endows your
>> position with dredence.
>>

>
> Not at all. Just because I agree with him about some things is no
> reason why my position is any more credible. I have been trying to
> explain his ideas to you, I have obviously failed. You think it's my
> fault, well, that's probably not an entirely objective matter, is it?


Irregardless, you've never made anything resembling a decent attempt to
explain his ideas. Maybe you can't.


>> >> > If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
>> >> > quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
>> >> > need improving.

>>
>> >> Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)

>>
>> > I think there are some fairly obvious different between us two.

>>
>> Did you miss the irony in your use of the word discriminate?

>
> I saw the joke, yes, but no, any irony has escaped me.


You have made "discrimination" (based on species) the bogey-man that haunts
us, then you claim my powers of discrimination are lacking.




Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 05:08 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 7, 2:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there
>> >> >> exists
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true.
>> >> >> Since
>> >> >> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to
>> >> >> establish
>> >> >> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt
>> >> >> that,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to
>> >> >> believe
>> >> >> in something like this.

>>
>> >> > Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
>> >> > precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to
>> >> > say
>> >> > and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all
>> >> > rubbish.
>> >> > I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I
>> >> > think
>> >> > DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on
>> >> > those
>> >> > who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.

>>
>> >> Well, that's not a very compelling commentary either. I think he does
>> >> an
>> >> inadequate job of it, his arguments just go in circles endlessly. I
>> >> suspect
>> >> he could have recited Mary had a little lamb and you would have found
>> >> it
>> >> convincing.

>>
>> > Well, that's not true at all. I read it critically and found it
>> > convincing.

>>
>> How do you know that you didn't find it convincing because you already
>> believed that it is a compelling theory? How does one read something
>> critically when you're an avid cheerleader?
>>

>
> Well, I guess you don't, but I do. And I thought we were going to stop
> being condescending to each other.


I'm trying to walk a fine line here.

>> > Evidently you didn't respond the same way. Fine, what are
>> > your criticisms of it?

>>
>> I found that it went in circles, stating premises and using them to move
>> to
>> the next argument. He nver even defines the concept clearly. He admits
>> that
>> is a problem, but soldiers on anyway. You think that's just a hurdle to
>> be
>> overcome, I think that is a major deal-buster.
>>
>> You now, in your own words, what about his argument is compelling?

>
> Okay, well, I'll maybe say a little about that later on, but just
> briefly, I don't agree with you that the lack of clarity in the
> central concept is such as to raise serious problems for the argument.
> That's the fundamental point of contention between me and you.


The problem as I see it is that everything appears to flow out of and/or
rely on the central concept, if that doesn't resolve itself then everything
collapses around it, then one is left where you began, the concept sounds
nice, but still rests on shaky ground. To compound that problem, he chose,
in my view, a terrible name for the concept. Whatever it ends up to mean, if
it is ever resolved, "equal consideration" is bound to be a misnomer.

OT: I watched the movie "Proof" last night, I'll bet that's a favorite of
yours huh?



Dutch[_2_] 08-06-2007 05:14 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 8, 11:46 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
>> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
>> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>>
>> >> Where's the talk?

>>
>> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

>>
>> You may want to read this alsohttp://folk.uio.no/jonw/moralstat99.doc
>> ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral
>> status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them? It argues
>> for
>> a biocentric answer which ascribes inherent moral status value to all
>> individual living organisms. This position must be defended against an
>> anthropocentric position. The argument from marginal cases propounded by
>> Tom
>> Regan and Peter Singer for this purpose is criticised as defective, and a
>> different argument is proposed. The biocentric position developed here is
>> related to that of Albert Schweitzer and Paul F Taylor, but rejects their
>> assumption of equal inherent value for all living organisms. It argues
>> instead for equal moral status value for moral persons and agents, and
>> gradual moral status value for nonpersons, depending on their degree of
>> similarity with moral persons. Mary Ann Warren's recent book on Moral
>> Status
>> is also discussed. The argument is constructed as a casuistic argument,
>> proceeding by analogical extension from persons to non-persons. The
>> meta-ethical question of its pragmatic validity is discussed.

>
> Sure, that looks interesting, I'll take a look.
>



I've only read the first few pages but right away I recognize that this is
the paradigm which I believe most accurately reflects existing human
morality, encompassing the evolution of it towards greater recognition of
the inherent value of animals, while at the same time being consistent with
the real world.

The "anthropocentric position", "argument from marginal cases" along with
"equal consideration" utterly fail to ring true in this respect.


Rupert 08-06-2007 05:23 AM

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 
On Jun 7, 2:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> groups.com...

>
> >> > On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> groups.com...

>
> >> >> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> >> > There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument.
> >> >> >> > It's
> >> >> >> > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one
> >> >> >> > rational
> >> >> >> > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously
> >> >> >> > no-one's
> >> >> >> > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their
> >> >> >> > impact
> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is
> >> >> >> > nevertheless
> >> >> >> > one reasonable step to take.

>
> >> >> >> Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as
> >> >> >> that,
> >> >> >> but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with
> >> >> >> hard-core
> >> >> >> Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view.
> >> >> >> It's
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying,
> >> >> >> blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely
> >> >> >> "suggesting
> >> >> >> veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the
> >> >> >> case
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione.

>
> >> >> > No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the
> >> >> > basis
> >> >> > of arguments other than the environmental argument.

>
> >> >> They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
> >> >> portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral
> >> >> avenue
> >> >> available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.

>
> >> >> >> Not you
> >> >> >> either, based on everything you've said.

>
> >> >> > Why not?

>
> >> >> Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
> >> >> fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a
> >> >> moderate
> >> >> view of animal use. The two are incongruent.

>
> >> > What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?

>
> >> I didn't say they were wrong, I said that they are not moderate. Your
> >> position reflects strong animal rights thinking, and therefore is not
> >> congruent with moderate statements like the ones you posited above.

>
> > My position is not inconsistent with the moderate statement I posted
> > above. I do believe in that moderate statement and my position is not
> > inconsistent with it.

>
> That reply is consistent with your pattern of issuing empty denials when
> something about your position is pointed out.
>


There is no inconsistency between my position and the statements I
made. You think you've found one, well, argue the point. Provide
citations from me showing that my position is inconsistent with the
statement I made. There's no empty denial going on, the fact is you
don't understand my position very well.


>
>
> >> If one
> >> believes that slavery is wrong then one does not "suggest that perhaps we
> >> should cut down on the number of slaves we own".

>
> > I think that there are other arguments which have stronger outcomes
> > than the environmental argument.

>
> What does that mean? How does it answer what I said?
>


When I was just making the environmental argument, I made
correspondingly qualified statements. In other contexts, my statements
might be less qualified.

> I acknowledge that there may well be
>
> > some non-vegan diets which are at least as good as the typical vegan
> > diet.

>
> Then how can people of good will recommend veganism which forbids the
> consumption of animals?
>


Because it's one good strategy with respect to reducing animal
suffering.

>
>
> >> >> >> If you have decided to accept AR
> >> >> >> ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be
> >> >> >> tolerant,
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas
> >> >> >> interesting,
> >> >> >> but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you
> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >> chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many
> >> >> >> questions
> >> >> >> about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the
> >> >> >> very
> >> >> >> least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as
> >> >> >> skeptical
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> angle or something, without providing hard evidence.

>
> >> >> > The trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
> >> >> > accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not
> >> >> > really
> >> >> > saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

>
> >> >> That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this
> >> >> can't
> >> >> be
> >> >> parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking
> >> >> doesn't
> >> >> really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
> >> >> mathematics in that way.

>
> >> > Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
> >> > thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
> >> > understand.

>
> >> I agree, I have read some of your thesis, it's way above my head,
> >> however,
> >> as I just said, mathematics is not moral philosophy.

>
> > No, it's not, but you should be open to the possibility that there are
> > some concepts in moral philosophy which take just a little bit of
> > effort to understand if you're relatively new to the subject.

>
> I'm not, I have been thinking about morality for many years.
>


Jolly good, but I suspect there are some parts of moral philosophy
you're unfamiliar with. Otherwise you'd understand DeGrazia better
than you do, you wouldn't ask the question you asked about positive
duties to humans, for example.

> Yes,
>
> > you're right, I misread your statement, I think I read "like" instead
> > of "unlike" for some reason.

>
> >> > You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
> >> > with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
> >> > and with an open mind.

>
> >> I do have an open mind, but you have to learn how to articulate.

>
> > Well, maybe, but perhaps you could do me the favour of having some
> > respect for the fact that I've spent a while studying the subject and
> > I'm taking the trouble to impart my understanding of it to you. I
> > mean, you don't have to think that I'm some sort of genius at moral
> > philosophy and you should be privileged to talk to me, but you could
> > at least listen politely and with an open mind and be open to the
> > possibility that I may have a few things to teach you here. I mean,
> > I'm sure there are some subjects you understand better than me. Maybe
> > I'm deluding myself, maybe you're right that this is all just waffle,
> > but you could at least just listen politely and refrain from calling
> > from me a pseudo-intellectual. I mean, I find it a bit ironic that you
> > take it upon yourself to criticize me for being condescending. I think
> > you're a lot more condescending than me. Anyway, you seem to be
> > concerned about raising the tone of this newsgroup, so why don't we
> > try to have a conversation where we're not condescending to each
> > other, where we assume good faith on each other's part, and it's about
> > the issues, not the people? And I'll try to be as clear as I can.

>
> I have already begun doing so, as I'm sure you have noticed.
>


Fantastic.

>
>
> >> >You asked me to explain how my views are

>
> >> > consistent with equal consideration,

>
> >> I did not, I asked how any life could be.

>
> > Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter Singer.
> > There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.

>
> Peter Singer admits that he is not sure if such a position can even exist
> outside a discussion hall, if I recall correctly. That is my litmus test for
> the validity of a theory.
>


Well, that's interesting, can you give me a citation?

> >> > I said Peter Singer's views are,
> >> > and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
> >> > that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
> >> > of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
> >> > being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
> >> > to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
> >> > for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
> >> > much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?

>
> >> What you don't get it is that what I am interested in is ideas that can
> >> survive in the crucible of a real-world test, not endless rhetoric.

>
> > Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice? Do you
> > know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.

>
> Peter Singer is not opposed to animal use per se, so I'm not sure why you
> actually consider him an example of your way of thinking.
>


Peter Singer was my first major influence in my thinking about animal
ethics, and he's still an important influence, the main difference is
that I am not a utilitarian.

> >> >> > I see a problem with
> >> >> > discriminating on the basis of species alone.

>
> >> >> That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you
> >> >> mean
> >> >> by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say
> >> >> something
> >> >> is a
> >> >> problem?

>
> >> > There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
> >> > mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
> >> > my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.

>
> >> See, you didn't respond again.

>
> > Well, I pointed you to something which I thought might help to explain
> > what I mean by "discrimination on the basis of species". It's a little
> > bit tiresome, you telling me that my statements are "corrupt" and then
> > complaining my supposed non-responsiveness. Can't you try and be a
> > little more polite?

>
> I didn't call YOU corrupt, I used the term in the more technical sense, the
> argument is corrupt because the terminology is vague and unfocused. I asked
> for clarification and you refused to give it.
>


Hopefully my talk will provide some clarification.

> >> >> Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
> >> >> to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of
> >> >> "injust
> >> >> or unfair discrimination".

>
> >> > No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
> >> > of discrimination needs justification.

>
> >> No it doesn't. You don't understand the meaning of the word.

>
> > Well, I beg to differ. See my talk.

>
> >> > If species discrimination is
> >> > not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
> >> > to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
> >> > hair isn't good enough.

>
> >> Why not, because you say so and you are a hot-shot? I never presented
> >> that
> >> as a definitive argument, but since you keep referring to it, why isn't
> >> pointing out that we kill demodex mites good enough to show that we must
> >> discriminate based on species?

>
> > Well, for one thing, it's very possible that demodex mites aren't
> > sentient.

>
> Yes, and..?
>


In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them any
moral consideration.

> >> >> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
> >> >> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
> >> >> always equitably either.

>
> >> > Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
> >> > species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
> >> > without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.

>
> >> So you have frequently pointed out, but never explained.

>
> > I think I've said a bit by way of explaining it. Why don't you have a
> > look at my talk?

>
> >> >> Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
> >> >> " It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances
> >> >> and
> >> >> ways
> >> >> in which we would not harm other humans."

>
> >> > Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species.

>
> >> You had to insert a waffle into a perfectly clear statement, why?

>
> > It's not waffle, and it was a necessary qualification.

>
> Why? I think that it completely muddied the waters. My statement was
> comprised of clear unequivocal words conveying a clear unequivocal message.
> You introduced the phrase "relevantly similar" which itself requires
> explanation, introduces the possibility of equivocation, has no clear
> meaning, and as far I can see contributes nothing positive. What is wrong
> with my statement that it does not adequately convey your position?
>


I acknowledge the possibility that there might be some morally
relevant differences between typical humans and typical nonhumans. I
prefer to sharpen the issue by looking at the contrast between the way
we treat radically cognitively impaired humans and nonhumans.

> >> Yes,

>
> >> > exactly. Thank you.

>
> >> No problem.

>
> >> >> The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
> >> >> principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first
> >> >> question
> >> >> is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does
> >> >> it
> >> >> make
> >> >> sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that
> >> >> it
> >> >> is
> >> >> foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before
> >> >> grasping
> >> >> all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real
> >> >> world.

>
> >> > All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
> >> > of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans?

>
> >> We don't. The rights of profoundly retarded individuals are curtailed to
> >> near zero, and their obligations as well. We do not charge such people
> >> with
> >> crimes regardless of their actions.

>
> > We give them a lot more rights than we give animals.

>
> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.
>


We give them a lot more protection.

> >That's the point.
> > Why?

>
> Because we choose to, because they're like us. Because "There but for the
> grace of God go I."


That thought is equally valid for nonhuman animals.

> We empathize, we hope that others would do the same if
> the tables were turned.
>
> >> > The point is
> >> > that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.

>
> >> You need to justify it perhaps, most of us do not. I don't need to
> >> justify
> >> discriminating between a chicken and a human any more than I need to
> >> justify
> >> discriminating between a mouse and a fly, or a spider and a banana. It's
> >> just something I do naturally.

>
> > The task of moral philosophy is to think critically about this kind of
> > thing.

>
> I know, but accepting a contrarian view because it sounds good is not
> critical thought. Accepting the accepted view is not uncritical thought.
>


Quite. I've thought carefully about these issues and I find the
argument from marginal cases to be quite a strong argument, although I
acknowledge that there are difficult issues that it raises. That's the
gist of my talk.

I don't see any reason why my views are any less the product of
critical thought than yours are.

> >> >> > I acknowledge that it is
> >> >> > a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
> >> >> > theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what
> >> >> > constitutes
> >> >> > discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
> >> >> > longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
> >> >> > is definitely incorrect.

>
> >> >> You're relying on the most extreme example,

>
> >> > Well, it was *your* example.

>
> >> But not my only one, and you knew it.

>
> >> >> what about bees, spiders and
> >> >> other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and
> >> >> lizards
> >> >> and
> >> >> toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less
> >> >> important
> >> >> to
> >> >> the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.

>
> >> > I wouldn't necessarily say that.

>
> >> You should, if you are really searching for the truth. Vegans constantly
> >> make arguments why the death of the field mouse is less morally
> >> significant
> >> than the death of the chicken or cow, as if the animals cared.

>
> > Well, I've never seen them. I don't agree with this contention.

>
> Which contention, that there is a moral difference or that vegans make this
> argument?



The former.

> If the latter, then you're wrong. The standard vegan response to
> the revelation of collateral deaths is that even if a pound of rice caused
> 10 mouse deaths, a pound of game that causes 1/10 of a livestock animal
> death is not preferable, because the livestock animal death is different in
> kind (ie. accident vs deliberate). I have heard this argument in dozens of
> forms from different vegans. My belief is that it is fundamentally and
> logically unsound to extrapolate human political relationships to
> animal-human relationships (the AR treatise). What is logical is that an
> animal death is an animal death, if the motive is to obtain food, then there
> is no real distinction.
>


But there's no good reason why there shouldn't be some limit on what
we may do to animals to provide ourselves with food.

> >> I argue that
> >> the deaths are morally equivalent, therefore it should be as important to
> >> a
> >> vegan to consume less, or make better choices among vegetarian fare, as
> >> it
> >> is to avoid animal products, but that is not the case. The avoidance of
> >> animal products dwarfs all other concerns in the vegan mindset.

>
> > It should be important to be selective in one's choice of plant food
> > if one had reliable information that this would make a significant
> > difference.

>
> I'm sure this *is* done to an extent, and there is information, such as
> about organic and local produce. My point is that these choices are
> considered trivial compared to the vegan rule which prohibits meat. This
> shows irrational rigidity if it is viewed as anything more than preference,
> in the light of collateral deaths.>> >It's just that it's harder to do
> >> > something about it.

>
> >> That should not make it any less significant, they die for the same
> >> reason,
> >> because we want food. Veganism suffers from myopia, it thinks too much of
> >> it's own prime directive, which has been foisted upon it from the animal
> >> rights movement.

>
> >> >> That definitely shows you've got a long way

>
> >> >> > to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
> >> >> > entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you
> >> >> > need
> >> >> > to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
> >> >> > arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
> >> >> > pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
> >> >> > wrong.

>
> >> >> Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting
> >> >> to
> >> >> explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
> >> >> shortcomings.

>
> >> >> I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought,
> >> >> but I
> >> >> would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first,
> >> >> using
> >> >> Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.

>
> >> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> >> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> >> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> >> I browsed some points there the other day, I'll have a look.





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter