On Jun 8, 2:08 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.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.
>

Well, all right, but I don't really see what basis you have for saying
you're thinking about this critically and I'm not.

>
>
>
>
> >> > 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.
>

Well, we'll talk about that a bit later as well, maybe, perhaps having
a look at what "equal consideration for humans" should mean.


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

Yes, I enjoyed it. The acting is quite good. I saw the play on which
it was based as well.

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

On Jun 8, 1:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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?
>

It's one thing to say we are justified in inflicting some harm on
animals to feed ourselves. It's another thing to say we can do
whatever we want to animals as long as it's for the purpose of food
production. What about pate de foie gras, for example? Is that
justified because food is involved? Most people, when they learn about
the realities of modern farming, think that it needs a bit more
justification than just "We've got to eat".

> >> 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,

As discussed above, I think the idea that there is no limit is pretty
implausible.

> second, you must define where that limit lies,

Yes, certainly that's a problem.

> and
> finally, you must deal with the eventuality that a non-vegan food choice
> might trump a vegan food choice in some cases.

Sure. What's the problem with that?

> 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.
>

Why not just "going vegan is one way you can reduce your contribution
to animal suffering"? Why isn't that a valid basis?

> >> 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.
>
> [..]

On Jun 7, 2:50 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 5:43 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.
>
> >> > 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.
>

Thank you for your interesting view. I don't agree with it at all. I
don't make a big deal out of displaying my erudition when I talk to
Jon.

> >> > 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.

Sometimes, maybe. Why do you think you're in a position to criticize?

On Jun 8, 2:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.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.
>

I've done more by way of expressing my views than just referring you
to DeGrazia's book. It is reasonable for me to ask you to come up with
a good criticism of it, I don't think you've done that yet.

> >> 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.
>

Well, that's your view. In my experience I'm quite good at explaining
his ideas to people who are prepared to listen with an open mind.

> >> >> > 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.

What I object to is *unjustified* discrimination.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.
>


I would include that in the talk so listeners can easily look up other
papers and debate on the topic.

I finished reading your talk, I thought it was quite well-presented and
balanced, I was pleasantly surprised.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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 just read the section in moralstat99.doc which does a good job of refuting
the AMC. It's on page 20 if you want to skip to it, but it'd be better to
read your way there, because he lays a lot of groundwork. Incidentally, even
though he is using philosophical jargon, I have no trouble following his
train of thought.

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

My point was that neither are mine, just because I rely on a different
approach.

>> >> >> > 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.

Good, that's a pretty big hurdle.

>> 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.

Maybe not. I think that the argument for assigning graduated moral status
could potentially deal with this whole problem in quite a coherent way.


[..]

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 8, 1:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "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?
>>
>
> It's one thing to say we are justified in inflicting some harm on
> animals to feed ourselves. It's another thing to say we can do
> whatever we want to animals as long as it's for the purpose of food
> production. What about pate de foie gras, for example? Is that
> justified because food is involved? Most people, when they learn about
> the realities of modern farming, think that it needs a bit more
> justification than just "We've got to eat".

I see, but the principle still applies to any form of agriculture.

>> >> 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,
>
> As discussed above, I think the idea that there is no limit is pretty
> implausible.

I agree, but I still think it needs to be argued.

>
>> second, you must define where that limit lies,
>
> Yes, certainly that's a problem.

I think it's probably not as difficult as it appears to get general
agreement on this once you start from a rational idea that suffering should
be limited in some way. Foie gras for example is already on many meat-eaters
no-go list, along with veal.

>
>> and
>> finally, you must deal with the eventuality that a non-vegan food choice
>> might trump a vegan food choice in some cases.
>
> Sure. What's the problem with that?

I have found it to be a tough sell among vegans.

>> 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.
>>
>
> Why not just "going vegan is one way you can reduce your contribution
> to animal suffering"? Why isn't that a valid basis?

That's a good slogan, I have no objection to it per se, but you must realize
that there is a close affiliation between veganism and radical animal
rights, and that camp will not be satisfied with presenting veganism as "one
way". They see animal use as profoundly immoral, and when taken in the
context of agriculture overall I consider this to a hysterical conclusion.

>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> [..]
>
>

On Jun 8, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 1:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "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?
>
> > It's one thing to say we are justified in inflicting some harm on
> > animals to feed ourselves. It's another thing to say we can do
> > whatever we want to animals as long as it's for the purpose of food
> > production. What about pate de foie gras, for example? Is that
> > justified because food is involved? Most people, when they learn about
> > the realities of modern farming, think that it needs a bit more
> > justification than just "We've got to eat".
>
> I see, but the principle still applies to any form of agriculture.
>
> >> >> 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,
>
> > As discussed above, I think the idea that there is no limit is pretty
> > implausible.
>
> I agree, but I still think it needs to be argued.
>
>
>
> >> second, you must define where that limit lies,
>
> > Yes, certainly that's a problem.
>
> I think it's probably not as difficult as it appears to get general
> agreement on this once you start from a rational idea that suffering should
> be limited in some way. Foie gras for example is already on many meat-eaters
> no-go list, along with veal.
>
>
>
> >> and
> >> finally, you must deal with the eventuality that a non-vegan food choice
> >> might trump a vegan food choice in some cases.
>
> > Sure. What's the problem with that?
>
> I have found it to be a tough sell among vegans.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Why not just "going vegan is one way you can reduce your contribution
> > to animal suffering"? Why isn't that a valid basis?
>
> That's a good slogan, I have no objection to it per se, but you must realize
> that there is a close affiliation between veganism and radical animal
> rights, and that camp will not be satisfied with presenting veganism as "one
> way". They see animal use as profoundly immoral, and when taken in the
> context of agriculture overall I consider this to a hysterical conclusion.
>

It may be that some vegans are to some extent irrational, but I also
think that quite a lot of the antis in this group are quite irrational
as well. I've never been saying anything except that veganism is one
reasonable strategy for reducing your contribution to animal
suffering, and I've received nothing but unmeasured scorn and
accusations of hypocrisy. Jon thinks he's undermined any possible
moral foundation for veganism, well, that's obvious nonsense, that's
what I have in mind when I say I've pointed out the limited
applicability of his argument. Some of the points you people make are
reasonable, but you should make them in a reasonable way and take care
not to make unwarranted assumptions about your opponents.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> [..]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 7, 2:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
Missed a bunch in my previous reply..

[..]

>> >> 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.

Whatever..

>
>> 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.

Then it's only valid to recommend it as such, not as a moral imperative one
must adhere to in order to avoid the horrific moral and ethical violation of
eating meat. That's the actual message veganism projects.

[..]


>> > 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 got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary Francione on
Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>
>> >> > 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.

You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in certain
ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian viewpoint.


>> >> >> > 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.

It did actually.

>> >> >> 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.

So equal consideration is actually scaled 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.

That's interesting but it doesn't lead us anywhere, I prefer the biocentric
approach.

>> >> 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.

In some cases we do, not always.


>> >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.

Ah, but it's not.

>
>> 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 am much older than you for one thing, so I have had many more years to
think and many more experiences to draw from. I'm not saying that to demean,
it's just a factor.

[..]

Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> That does not contradict what I said.

It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
dimension; K.M. denies it. That is, unequivocally, a
contradiction.

Your ego is crippling you.


>
>> 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?"

Nice whiff-off, rupie.


>> 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

rupie: you are wrong. Your towering youthful and
untempered ego gets in the way of your eventual and
inevitable concession.



>>>> 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" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 8, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 1:55 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "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?
>>
>> > It's one thing to say we are justified in inflicting some harm on
>> > animals to feed ourselves. It's another thing to say we can do
>> > whatever we want to animals as long as it's for the purpose of food
>> > production. What about pate de foie gras, for example? Is that
>> > justified because food is involved? Most people, when they learn about
>> > the realities of modern farming, think that it needs a bit more
>> > justification than just "We've got to eat".
>>
>> I see, but the principle still applies to any form of agriculture.
>>
>> >> >> 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,
>>
>> > As discussed above, I think the idea that there is no limit is pretty
>> > implausible.
>>
>> I agree, but I still think it needs to be argued.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> second, you must define where that limit lies,
>>
>> > Yes, certainly that's a problem.
>>
>> I think it's probably not as difficult as it appears to get general
>> agreement on this once you start from a rational idea that suffering
>> should
>> be limited in some way. Foie gras for example is already on many
>> meat-eaters
>> no-go list, along with veal.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> and
>> >> finally, you must deal with the eventuality that a non-vegan food
>> >> choice
>> >> might trump a vegan food choice in some cases.
>>
>> > Sure. What's the problem with that?
>>
>> I have found it to be a tough sell among vegans.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > Why not just "going vegan is one way you can reduce your contribution
>> > to animal suffering"? Why isn't that a valid basis?
>>
>> That's a good slogan, I have no objection to it per se, but you must
>> realize
>> that there is a close affiliation between veganism and radical animal
>> rights, and that camp will not be satisfied with presenting veganism as
>> "one
>> way". They see animal use as profoundly immoral, and when taken in the
>> context of agriculture overall I consider this to a hysterical
>> conclusion.
>>
>
> It may be that some vegans are to some extent irrational, but I also
> think that quite a lot of the antis in this group are quite irrational
> as well. I've never been saying anything except that veganism is one
> reasonable strategy for reducing your contribution to animal
> suffering, and I've received nothing but unmeasured scorn and
> accusations of hypocrisy. Jon thinks he's undermined any possible
> moral foundation for veganism, well, that's obvious nonsense, that's
> what I have in mind when I say I've pointed out the limited
> applicability of his argument. Some of the points you people make are
> reasonable, but you should make them in a reasonable way and take care
> not to make unwarranted assumptions about your opponents.

I can only repeat what I have already said, and that in my experience
veganism and tolerance are virtually never synonymous, so those assumptions
to date have always proved warranted. If you are preaching a new kind of
veganism then you have my admiration.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 8, 2:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>> 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.
>>
>
> I've done more by way of expressing my views than just referring you
> to DeGrazia's book. It is reasonable for me to ask you to come up with
> a good criticism of it, I don't think you've done that yet.

As always, you have an extraordinarily rosy view of your own contributions,
and attribute the shortcomings to the rest of us.


>> >> 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.
>>
>
> Well, that's your view. In my experience I'm quite good at explaining
> his ideas to people who are prepared to listen with an open mind.

Your talk is far more informative than your posts here have been, I don't
know why. It seems that you are too lazy to bother composing your ideas
here.

>
>> >> >> > 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.
>
> What I object to is *unjustified* discrimination.

Discrimination based on species is not unjustified, just poorly explained,
quoting pages 19-20 of moralstat99.doc by JON WETLESEN. It loses some
context in the process, but you may be familiar with his referencing.

A rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases
It may well be that Warren's proposal at this point is more adequate in
relation to common sense than the positions of Regan or Singer.
Nevertheless, it appears that all three of them have based their arguments
on the assumption that the concepts of a moral person and a moral agent are
synonymous or equivalent. This assumption can be contested, and if it is
rejected, it seems that their arguments will not work.
An alternative to their assumption has been developed by Jens Saugstad in
his doctoral thesis on The Moral Ontology of Human Fetuses; A Metaphysical
Investigation of Personhood (1994). On Saugstad's interpretation, Kant's
concept of a moral person is generic in relation to that of a moral agent.
This implies that the class of moral agents is a subclass of moral persons;
some moral persons are moral agents, others are not.
On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two
kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral
agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or her
actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the
capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also the
operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice. However, a
subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without having the
operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral person without
being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded on the actual
capability and not on the potential ability.
Two consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it extends
moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and necessary
condition for this extension is the presence of the capability of moral
agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the operative ability
is also present. On this ground equal inherent value and equal basic rights
can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human beings.
Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not
equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as in
normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages of
pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents, but
they have it potentially and it will be actualised in due time. Still they
may be assumed to have the capability as an actual internal property, and
this is the ground for considering them to be persons. It may be asked
whether this argument justifies the assumption about equal moral status
value. Would it not be possible to introduce grading on the basis of how far
the potentiality for moral agency has developed? This view has been
propounded in discussions about abortion. On the basis of the present
argument, however, it must be rejected, since moral status value is assumed
to be grounded on capabilities of agency, which are actual, and not on
potential abilities.
In other cases there are humans who have been moral agents, but have lost
the required abilities. This pertains to many cases of the severely brain
damaged and the severely senile. If we assume that they have retained their
capabilities of being moral agents, we still have a sufficient reason for
ascribing equal inherent value to them. Against this it may be objected that
they may have lost not only their ability of being moral agents, but also
their capability. There is room for much empirical doubt about these
borderline cases, and for that reason there is also room for giving them the
benefit of doubt. Admittedly, this is a somewhat ad hoc assumption. Even if
it is not a good scientific explanation, however, it may be a good moral
reason.
This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases of
marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents and
will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded. Theoretically, it
is not inconceivable that the capability is still there, and that this can
be used as a ground for ascribing an equal moral status value to them. If
this justification is not accepted, however, it does not necessarily follow
that they have no moral status value at all. They may have a gradual moral
status value, depending on the argument which we shall discuss below. As for
those who are born without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to all
moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and egalitarian. If
this way of understanding the relation between moral persons and moral
agents works, there will be no need to distinguish Agent's Rights and Human
Rights the way Warren does. They will be grounded in the same internal
property of moral persons, and there will be no need for a supplementary
justification based on an external relation such as membership in a human
society.
The second consequence which follows from this position is that there will
be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which can
justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of moral
status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably the
capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted to be a
necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its absence in
other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to
them. In this way Kant's anthropocentrism is vindicated, albeit with the
proviso mentioned earlier that this rests on the contingent fact that only
humans are moral persons. Theoretically, there might be other moral persons
also, but there seem to be none, excepting perhaps some of our closest
relatives among the primates.

On Jun 7, 3:37 pm, 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.
>
> . . .
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
> ever documented at Gombe.

> "When Jane Goodall

Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high.

'..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake
Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the
Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest.
...
The dominating vegetation in this park include the open
deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on
the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in
Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee,
Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen
here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. ..'
http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm

In the older research, primates are observed in less limited
and fragmented habitat than in your more recent studies.

On Jun 6, 11:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza > Thou proud traitor. Thou
> billowy-headed, humourless grown serpent. Ye inveighed:
>
>
>
> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >> pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
> >> waverer. Ye snickered:
> >>> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>> pearl > Thou marble-hearted fiend. I do repent
> >>>> the tedious minutes I with thee have spent. Ye mewled:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of
> >>>>>> eating protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans
> >>>>>> would not be in a position to contemplate the fate of animals
> >>>>>> they might otherwise devour.
> >>>>> 'There is a popular notion<BITCHSLAP>
> >>> <yawn>
>
> >> Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.
>
> > lesley - she ain't no pearl - is an anti-intellectual,
> > anti-science crackpot. She also is a whore in Cork,
> > Ireland, who believes in and promotes:

The pervert can't support his ad hominem with quotes.

> Well then, she'll be right at home in alt.usenet.kooks. Thanks for the info.

This is what you're talking to.. your new pal..

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

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

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

Jonathan Ball aka aka aka... fits right in.

On Jun 6, 5:07 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> > ..
> >> Cooked meat
>
> > "The natural food of man,
>
> No such thing.

False.

> > judging from his structure,
>
> I thought you said it was folly to try to use
> anthropology to support dietary philosophy?

No.

> You stupid bitch: "natural diet" is a *philosophy*.
> It is a moral judgment, not a scientific one.

False.

> Like
> other nature-as-religion assholes, you believe that to
> "deviate" from what you wrongly consider to be "nature"
> is a sin.

A disrespectul and foolish fatal mistake for sure.

"At this moment, many different meditational and prayer-
centered organizations around the world, are using group
focus to bring about global change. Some meditate for
peace, and others pray for the intercession of Divine
forces, to place humanity once again on the most
progressive course for interpersonal and international
relations. Some groups meditate upon creating a
coherence of mind, others upon peacefulness and
wisdom among our race. Still others use a silence of
mind to calm the modern chaos and conflict.
Regardless of the names of the practices or their
spiritual leaders, and regardless of the methods of
meditation or prayer, the essential point to realize here
is that humanity is awakening out of a 3000-5000 year
slumber. This collective sleep came upon us as we
left natural ways and laws. It has cast a shadow upon
all the products of civilization. Only now is there a
significant dawning of the new Age, which is actually
the most ancient of all knowledge and practices, at its
foundation.

What is being realized is that there is a higher order in
the universe than that imposed by martial regulation,
and a higher law than the edicts of courts or judges.
This law is higher because it is the very source for
human existence, as well as all of life itself. The highest
law of all is structured by natural and spiritual design.
The greatest means for success in life is through natural
and spiritual principles. Natural laws and spiritual
principles are in essence one in the same thing. They
are both ways of referring to the Cosmic Order we
must all obey or suffer the consequences of wrong
Intent.. There are a great many among us today, who
are realizing that the unity of Intent, of effort and
focused determination, are exactly what is needed at
this moment in history. Very soon, the days of
individual and competitive effort alone, will be
considered obsolete and even primitive. True social
progress will in the near future, be defined as
progressive and mutual spirituality. This unity of
spiritual focus will render the sweetest fruits that
humanity has ever known, in the form of
compassionate relations, dynamic community living,
the sharing of resources, and the recognition of the
Brotherhood and Sisterhood of all people, in all
places upon the globe. All of this will take place
through one singular means, and this is the elevation
of consciousness, at a grass-roots level in society.
Groups around the world dedicated to the expansion
of consciousness, are the very sparks which will
ignite the spiritual fire of global illumination.

Natural and spiritual laws tell us that the
purpose of life is growth, change and constant
evolution. Humanity is still very much in the midst
of this evolutionary process. We are growing and
becoming more than we ever were, or at least this
is the human potential. Our brain capacity and
consciousness is such, that we have the option to
choose the path of living we are to collectively take.
But this capacity for free will comes with a price.
It is ours to choose, yet we must choose wisely or
suffer extinction. There are a broad range of
possibilities and actions open to us within the
parameters of natural law. But outside of these
parameters we may not stray for long, because the
Universe has organized purpose, and we may not
defy this purpose indefinitely. This means that free
will is not the whole equation of human mental capacity.
We must be more than merely intelligent, we must also
be wise. Wisdom is none other than the application
of truth in ones' life. The greater the application, the
greater is the wisdom. Wisdom tends to be the
bi-product of natural living, since nature operates
directly upon Truth. In our free will, the acquisition
of natural wisdom is necessary so that we may make
the choices which sustain all life, and not just the
benefit of a few.
...
- Matthew Webb / The Perpetual Raising , 2001

> Kadaitcha Man: lesley will now whine and cry about
> "bullies". Bet on it.

You lost.

On Jun 6, 5:07 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> > ..
> >> Cooked meat
>
> > "The natural food of man,
>
> No such thing.

False.

> > judging from his structure,
>
> I thought you said it was folly to try to use
> anthropology to support dietary philosophy?

No.

> You stupid bitch: "natural diet" is a *philosophy*.
> It is a moral judgment, not a scientific one.

False.

> Like
> other nature-as-religion assholes, you believe that to
> "deviate" from what you wrongly consider to be "nature"
> is a sin.

A disrespectul and foolish fatal mistake for sure.

"At this moment, many different meditational and prayer-
centered organizations around the world, are using group
focus to bring about global change. Some meditate for
peace, and others pray for the intercession of Divine
forces, to place humanity once again on the most
progressive course for interpersonal and international
relations. Some groups meditate upon creating a
coherence of mind, others upon peacefulness and
wisdom among our race. Still others use a silence of
mind to calm the modern chaos and conflict.
Regardless of the names of the practices or their
spiritual leaders, and regardless of the methods of
meditation or prayer, the essential point to realize here
is that humanity is awakening out of a 3000-5000 year
slumber. This collective sleep came upon us as we
left natural ways and laws. It has cast a shadow upon
all the products of civilization. Only now is there a
significant dawning of the new Age, which is actually
the most ancient of all knowledge and practices, at its
foundation.

What is being realized is that there is a higher order in
the universe than that imposed by martial regulation,
and a higher law than the edicts of courts or judges.
This law is higher because it is the very source for
human existence, as well as all of life itself. The highest
law of all is structured by natural and spiritual design.
The greatest means for success in life is through natural
and spiritual principles. Natural laws and spiritual
principles are in essence one in the same thing. They
are both ways of referring to the Cosmic Order we
must all obey or suffer the consequences of wrong
Intent.. There are a great many among us today, who
are realizing that the unity of Intent, of effort and
focused determination, are exactly what is needed at
this moment in history. Very soon, the days of
individual and competitive effort alone, will be
considered obsolete and even primitive. True social
progress will in the near future, be defined as
progressive and mutual spirituality. This unity of
spiritual focus will render the sweetest fruits that
humanity has ever known, in the form of
compassionate relations, dynamic community living,
the sharing of resources, and the recognition of the
Brotherhood and Sisterhood of all people, in all
places upon the globe. All of this will take place
through one singular means, and this is the elevation
of consciousness, at a grass-roots level in society.
Groups around the world dedicated to the expansion
of consciousness, are the very sparks which will
ignite the spiritual fire of global illumination.

Natural and spiritual laws tell us that the
purpose of life is growth, change and constant
evolution. Humanity is still very much in the midst
of this evolutionary process. We are growing and
becoming more than we ever were, or at least this
is the human potential. Our brain capacity and
consciousness is such, that we have the option to
choose the path of living we are to collectively take.
But this capacity for free will comes with a price.
It is ours to choose, yet we must choose wisely or
suffer extinction. There are a broad range of
possibilities and actions open to us within the
parameters of natural law. But outside of these
parameters we may not stray for long, because the
Universe has organized purpose, and we may not
defy this purpose indefinitely. This means that free
will is not the whole equation of human mental capacity.
We must be more than merely intelligent, we must also
be wise. Wisdom is none other than the application
of truth in ones' life. The greater the application, the
greater is the wisdom. Wisdom tends to be the
bi-product of natural living, since nature operates
directly upon Truth. In our free will, the acquisition
of natural wisdom is necessary so that we may make
the choices which sustain all life, and not just the
benefit of a few.
...
- Matthew Webb / The Perpetual Raising , 2001

> Kadaitcha Man: lesley will now whine and cry about
> "bullies". Bet on it.

You lost.

On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> > ..
> >> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating
> >> protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
> >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour.
>
> > 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
> > insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
> > Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
> > [snip anti-intellectual twaddle]
>
> First of all, YOU are the one who attempts to use
> anthropology to justify a dietary "philosophy", you
> stupid **** whore. The problem is you try to do it
> selectively, picking the tiny bits that support your
> crackpot dietary philosophy and rejecting the vast
> majority that contradicts it. Of course, as I've
> pointed out dozens of times, you have read NOT ONE
> ****ING WORD of original literature on the topic. You
> CANNOT read it, as you have no exposure to the field.
>
> But the second thing is, the entire attempt on your
> part is a waste of time, because anthropologists don't
> care about a dietary "philosophy"; they're interested
> only showing what early humans actually did eat. Their
> conclusion is, they ate meat. The earliest humans and
> their predecessor species ate meat. This is not in
> serious dispute among anthropologists. You can try to
> supply whatever crackpot "philosophical" explanations
> you wish for it, but humans eat and have always eaten
> meat. And yes, they are adapted to it.

'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods
have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly
this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of
fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw
animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the
environmental factors our species have been exposed to
selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal
flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human
brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and
fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps
blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing
humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species.
The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary
absence of animal products is also noted.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
...
What are the essential biochemical properties of human
metabolism which distinguish us from our non-human primate
relatives? One, at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement
as described by Olav T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a
full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say
that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest
percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing
human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions
of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non
human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In
fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%)
of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their
research in order to allow other primatologists to construct
artificial
milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is
to
be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences
as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on
human infants.

Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate
milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive
lower protein requirements of humans. [see link]

Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may
restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many
nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double
(12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although
it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple
those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the
issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly
eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as
meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the
body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering
immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial
adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as
raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from
protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by
nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild
animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain
food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some
misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which
we experience in the domestic state.

The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the
supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those
of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast
feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive'
peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our
evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern
cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware
naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage.
However, what we do know of the consequences is that it
reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the
substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products,
is pathogenic.

Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with
human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists.
This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their
ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in
the final sections of the article.
.....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

pearl wrote:
> On Jun 7, 3:37 pm, 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.
>> . . .
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> [...]
>> In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
>> ever documented at Gombe.
>
>> "When Jane Goodall
>
> Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high.

Irrelevant.

Chimpanzees eat meat. That's what's relevant.

pearl wrote:
> On Jun 6, 11:44 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza > Thou proud traitor. Thou
>> billowy-headed, humourless grown serpent. Ye inveighed:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
>>>> waverer. Ye snickered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>> pearl > Thou marble-hearted fiend. I do repent
>>>>>> the tedious minutes I with thee have spent. Ye mewled:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of
>>>>>>>> eating protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans
>>>>>>>> would not be in a position to contemplate the fate of animals
>>>>>>>> they might otherwise devour.
>>>>>>> 'There is a popular notion<BITCHSLAP>
>>>>> <yawn>
>>>> Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.
>>> lesley - she ain't no pearl - is an anti-intellectual,
>>> anti-science crackpot. She also is a whore in Cork,
>>> Ireland, who believes in and promotes:
>
> The poster has well supported his claims.

Exactly.


>
>> Well then, she'll be right at home in alt.usenet.kooks. Thanks for the info.
>
> This is what you're talking to.. your new pal..
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing, you ****witted crackpot. You believe
in "inner earth beings" living under a dormant volcano.
You're a ****ing clueless new-age idiot.

pearl wrote:
> On Jun 6, 5:07 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> Cooked meat
>>> "The natural food of man,
>> No such thing.
>
> False.

No, it's true. There is no such thing as the "natural"
food of man, except in your dopey religion.


>>> judging from his structure,
>> I thought you said it was folly to try to use
>> anthropology to support dietary philosophy?
>
> No.

Yes, you did, you dopey slut: message ID
.com>


>> You stupid bitch: "natural diet" is a *philosophy*.
>> It is a moral judgment, not a scientific one.
>
> False.

No, true.



>> Like
>> other nature-as-religion assholes, you believe that to
>> "deviate" from what you wrongly consider to be "nature"
>> is a sin.
>
> A disrespectul

Moral judgment, as I said.


> and foolish fatal mistake for sure.
Another.

[snip irrational wheeze from the slut of Cork]

> Natural and spiritual laws tell us that the
> purpose of life

Bingo! As I said, this bullshit about "natural diet"
is all about religion, not science. "Spiritual laws"
your fat pimply ass.


>> Kadaitcha Man: lesley will now whine and cry about
>> "bullies". Bet on it.
>
> You lost.

You already did, bitch. You posted *exactly* the same
whines in your reply to him.

You are completely full of shit. All one needs to know
is your belief in "inner earth beings", a non-existent
(except in the minds of irrational new-age ****wits)
"race" of beings supposedly living under the dormant
Northern Californian volcano Mt. Shasta. You are
absolutely and undeniably a crackpot, a loon.

pearl wrote:
> On Jun 6, 5:02 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating
>>>> protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a
>>>> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour.
>>> 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
>>> insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
>>> Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
>>> [snip anti-intellectual twaddle]
>> First of all, YOU are the one who attempts to use
>> anthropology to justify a dietary "philosophy", you
>> stupid **** whore. The problem is you try to do it
>> selectively, picking the tiny bits that support your
>> crackpot dietary philosophy and rejecting the vast
>> majority that contradicts it. Of course, as I've
>> pointed out dozens of times, you have read NOT ONE
>> ****ING WORD of original literature on the topic. You
>> CANNOT read it, as you have no exposure to the field.
>>
>> But the second thing is, the entire attempt on your
>> part is a waste of time, because anthropologists don't
>> care about a dietary "philosophy"; they're interested
>> only showing what early humans actually did eat. Their
>> conclusion is, they ate meat. The earliest humans and
>> their predecessor species ate meat. This is not in
>> serious dispute among anthropologists. You can try to
>> supply whatever crackpot "philosophical" explanations
>> you wish for it, but humans eat and have always eaten
>> meat. And yes, they are adapted to it.
>
> 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
> insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.

[snip anti-science, anti-intellectual bullshit]

There is is: you disparage anthropology. So, you lied
when you denied having done it.

You ****ing slut.

Sod thr thread, but the use of quotation marks for emphasis is a sign of
paranoia!

The BBC news website does it all the time. Say noe mowwuhh!

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:01:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>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.

What was the hold up?

>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.

So you claim, Goo, but as yet you still can't explain why
you think so. Try doing it now. You too "pearl" if you're
reading this. Can anyone help Goo explain himself?

>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

Which particular "livestock animals" do you think you're
trying to talk about there Goober, do you have any clue what
you think you think at all? If so, try explaining which. Since
you can't, it has been revealed that once AGAIN you don't
have any idea what you think you think. You can't even
explain what you think you're trying to accuse me of. It really
is pathetic.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever, lied:
>>> 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.
>
> What was the hold up?
>
>> 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.
>
> So you claim, Rudy, but as yet you still can't explain why
> you think so.

I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.



>> 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
>
> Which particular "livestock animals" do you think you're
> trying to talk about there

No, that YOU are "trying to talk about there", ****wit.
YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
it clearly is only for yours.

On Jun 8, 10:16 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 3:37 pm, 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.
> >> . . .
> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> >> [...]
> >> In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes witnessing the largest massacre
> >> ever documented at Gombe.
>
> >> "When Jane Goodall
>
> > Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> Chimpanzees eat meat. That's what's relevant.



can you EXPLAIN that Goober?






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

On Jun 8, 10:25 am, Rudy Canoza > the 300 lb.
dwarf bemoaning his PPP blubbered through his tears :
> pearl wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 5:07 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>> ..
> >>>> Cooked meat
> >>> "The natural food of man,
> >> No such thing.
>
> > False.
>
> No, it's true. There is no such thing as the "natural"
> food of man, except in your dopey religion.
>
> >>> judging from his structure,
> >> I thought you said it was folly to try to use
> >> anthropology to support dietary philosophy?
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, you did, you dopey slut: message ID
> .com>
>
> >> You stupid bitch: "natural diet" is a *philosophy*.
> >> It is a moral judgment, not a scientific one.
>
> > False.
>
> No, true.
>
> >> Like
> >> other nature-as-religion assholes, you believe that to
> >> "deviate" from what you wrongly consider to be "nature"
> >> is a sin.
>
> > A disrespectul
>
> Moral judgment, as I said.
>
> > and foolish fatal mistake for sure.
>
> Another.
>
> [snip irrational wheeze from the slut of Cork]
>
> > Natural and spiritual laws tell us that the
> > purpose of life
>
> Bingo! As I said, this bullshit about "natural diet"
> is all about religion, not science. "Spiritual laws"
> your fat pimply ass.
>
> >> Kadaitcha Man: lesley will now whine and cry about
> >> "bullies". Bet on it.
>
> > You lost.
>
> You already did, bitch. You posted *exactly* the same
> whines in your reply to him.
>
> You are completely full of shit. All one needs to know
> is your belief in "inner earth beings", a non-existent
> (except in the minds of irrational new-age ****wits)
> "race" of beings supposedly living under the dormant
> Northern Californian volcano Mt. Shasta. You are
> absolutely and undeniably a crackpot, a loon.


Goo you stupid shit, it is well known that humans do better on an all
plant diet and also that the digestive system works at max efficiency
when only 20% full. IOW, you ignorant ****, humans should eat 5 or 6
small meals per day as opposed to the 3 that food industry/government
tells us we should eat.

On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 7, 2:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> Missed a bunch in my previous reply..
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> Whatever..
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Then it's only valid to recommend it as such, not as a moral imperative one
> must adhere to in order to avoid the horrific moral and ethical violation of
> eating meat. That's the actual message veganism projects.
>
> [..]
>
> >> > 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 got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary Francione on
> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .

Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?

>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in certain
> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian viewpoint.
>

The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
really not very good evidence that I am 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.
>
> It did actually.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>

Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.

> >> >> >> 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.
>
> That's interesting but it doesn't lead us anywhere, I prefer the biocentric
> approach.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> In some cases we do, not always.
>

Would you like to give an example?

> >> >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.
>
> Ah, but it's not.
>

Would you like to elaborate?

>
>
> >> 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 am much older than you for one thing, so I have had many more years to
> think and many more experiences to draw from. I'm not saying that to demean,
> it's just a factor.
>
> [..]

On Jun 8, 5:06 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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@j4g 2000prf.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.
>
> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> dimension; K.M. denies it.

That has never been in dispute.

> That is, unequivocally, a
> contradiction.
>

As I explained, it does not contradict the point I made.

> Your ego is crippling you.
>

Okay, Ball, I'll help you out here. Your ego constantly prevents you
from seeing that the fantasies you've made up about other people are
just the product of your own fevered brain and you have no rational
grounds for thinking they have any basis in reality. That is why I
find it very amusing when you talk about my ego. My ego is normal.
Your ego is of gargantuan proportions.

>
>
> >> 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?"
>
> Nice whiff-off, rupie.
>

There's nothing there that I need to address. It doesn't contradict
any contention I'm making.

> >> 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
>
> rupie: you are wrong. Your towering youthful and
> untempered ego gets in the way of your eventual and
> inevitable concession.

I discussed above why I find this very amusing. Incidentally, I'm not
that much more youthful than you. I'm 31 years old. You can't be that
much older if your son is only six.

>>>> 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.

There's no such thing as an issue with no "moral dimension" in that
sense. Everything is either morally permitted or it isn't. Kadaitcha
Man clearly thinks it *is* morally permitted. He thinks there's no
"moral dimension" in the sense that he doesn't think there's a serious
case against it being morally permitted. All this is quite consistent
with what I said.

> You, rupie, with your psychotic attachment
> >> to logical fallacies like false bifurcation, can't let
> >> go of your error.
>

The fact that you are unable to address what I say without bringing in
irrelevant considerations like my history of mental illness in a lame
attempt to put me down shows that there is no good reason to take you
seriously.

> >>>> 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 wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:06 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> That does not contradict what I said.
>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
>
> That has never been in dispute.

Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
therefore not requiring moral justification.

You stupid arrogant cocksucking ****.


>> That is, unequivocally, a
>> contradiction.
>>
>
> As I explained,

As *I* explained, it contradicts what you said.


>> Your ego is crippling you.
>>
>
> Okay, Rudy, I'll help you out here

You could not be of any help to any human being.

You are wrong. The statement contradicts what you
wrote. You got K.M.'s statement wrong.


>>>> 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?"
>> Nice whiff-off, rupie.
>>
>
> There's nothing there that I need to address. It doesn't contradict
> any contention I'm making.

It does. I have shown it. You got it wrong.


>>>> 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
>> rupie: you are wrong. Your towering youthful and
>> untempered ego gets in the way of your eventual and
>> inevitable concession.
>
> I discussed above why I find this

Your towering youthful, green, inexperienced,
ivory-tower ego gets in the way of your reaching a
right conclusion. You are a punk.


>>>>> 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.
>
> There's no such thing as an issue with no "moral dimension"

There is. You got your worthless Ph.D. in a field that
has issues with no moral dimension, you stupid plodding
****.

Your Ph.D. is worthless, as your presence here attests.
If you were a John Nash or a John von Neumann, you
wouldn't be here, you'd be doing maths. What a
worthless waste of educational resources you are.


>> You, rupie, with your psychotic attachment
>>>> to logical fallacies like false bifurcation, can't let
>>>> go of your error.
>
> The fact that you are unable to address what I say

I address it for what it's worth, and show you to be
full of shit, which is what you're worth.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>>
>> >> > 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 got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary Francione
>> on
>> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>
> Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?

Looking through my browsing history I can't find where I read that but I
came across this quote from Gary Francione's website,

"In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter
(co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be "conscientious
omnivores" and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to eat
only animals who have been "humanely" raised and killed.

Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or vegetarian
because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to killing
and eating animals for food and he never has.

If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the October
issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer's own words: "I think
people are mistaken if they think I've watered down that underlying ethical
argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation
I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the
argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at
Animal Liberation, they won't find that argument."

Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory
farming. Once we make the process more "humane," and address the issues of
suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back to
eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a mistake to be "too fanatical about
insisting on a purely vegan life." Asked about his own veganism, he
responds: "Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure." "

That's not the quote I was referring to, but I thought this was as good a
spot as any to stick it in for your reaction. It certainly makes it
plausible that he would make such a statement. In any case it was a quote
attributed to him, you can rely on it, fwiw, anyway, it's not that important
to me, I have no particular investment in the ideas of any of these people.
I have lived long enough and thought long and hard enough about these issues
that I do not subordinate my own ideas to any others'.

[..]

>> >> > 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.

I'd add here, Peter Singer's ideas are quite far removed from the
deontological ideas of most AR advocates,

>> >> 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.
>>
>> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in
>> certain
>> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian
>> viewpoint.
>>
>
> The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
> really not very good evidence that I am a utilitarian.

Actually it is excellent evidence of exactly that. A deontologist would
constantly refer to the fundamental rights of animals, not to the harmful
consequences of human actions.

[..]

>> > In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them any
>> > moral consideration.
>>
>> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>>
>
> Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
> interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.

I would question that statement, every organism that can be called a "being"
has interests, their survival strategies verify this, the real question is
to what extent they are aware of their own interests. That leads to the
issue of sentience, and I think it obvious that it's not something that can
simply be said to exist or not, it exists in infinite degrees. Starting with
the most basic of single-celled organisms moving through the animal kingdom
through insects, fish and other animal life, then mammals, apes, and finally
man, you have a scale of sentience, described by the height of awareness
each species has of their own interests. I would further submit that humans'
level of awareness is far higher in this regard than any other animal. The
way that we all view and act towards animals validates this view as
accurate.

[..]

>> >> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.
>>
>> > We give them a lot more protection.
>>
>> In some cases we do, not always.
>>
>
> Would you like to give an example?

Some people cherish and protect beloved pets as if they were their own
children. Some endangered species are protected to the point where any human
threatening one of them can be shot on sight, such as white rhinos.

>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> Ah, but it's not.
>>
>
> Would you like to elaborate?

Simply that "I" (i.e. we, us) could not be "there" because we *are* humans,
not members of the other species.

On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>> That does not contradict what I said.
> >> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> >> dimension; K.M. denies it.
>
> > That has never been in dispute.
>
> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.

No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
permitted. He does not think there is a moral prohibition. This is
implied by what you say, not contradicted by it.

> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> therefore not requiring moral justification.
>

He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it. He does
think it's morally permitted. Everything I've said is quite consistent
with this.

> You stupid arrogant cocksucking ****.
>
> >> That is, unequivocally, a
> >> contradiction.
>
> > As I explained,
>
> As *I* explained, it contradicts what you said.
>

You were wrong.

> >> Your ego is crippling you.
>
> > Okay, Rudy, I'll help you out here
>
> You could not be of any help to any human being.
>
> You are wrong. The statement contradicts what you
> wrote. You got K.M.'s statement wrong.
>

I have not made any misinterpretation of K.M.

> >>>> 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?"
> >> Nice whiff-off, rupie.
>
> > There's nothing there that I need to address. It doesn't contradict
> > any contention I'm making.
>
> It does. I have shown it. You got it wrong.
>
> >>>> 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
> >> rupie: you are wrong. Your towering youthful and
> >> untempered ego gets in the way of your eventual and
> >> inevitable concession.
>
> > I discussed above why I find this
>
> Your towering youthful, green, inexperienced,
> ivory-tower ego gets in the way of your reaching a
> right conclusion. You are a punk.
>

You're a very funny man, Ball. In exactly what sense do I lack
experience, by the way?

> >>>>> 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.
>
> > There's no such thing as an issue with no "moral dimension"
>
> There is.

What I wrote, which you snipped, was correct.

> You got your worthless Ph.D. in a field that
> has issues with no moral dimension, you stupid plodding
> ****.
>

I understand moral philosophy a lot better than you. You do not have a
Ph.D. in moral philosophy either. You are not competent to judge the
quality of my thesis. Two people who are competent have said it is of
high quality. I'll let you know what the examiners say if you like.

> Your Ph.D. is worthless, as your presence here attests.
> If you were a John Nash or a John von Neumann, you
> wouldn't be here, you'd be doing maths. What a
> worthless waste of educational resources you are.
>

You're really getting desperate now, aren't you, Ball?

I don't have any respect for your opinion about anything, least of all
my competence in mathematics. Do you really imagine you can criticize
that with any credibility? If I were to try to use your participation
here as evidence of your incompetence in economics, you'd think I was
a joke, correct? So why do you imagine you can criticize my
mathematical ability with any credibility? Of course, you never
appeared to have much concern for your credibility in the past.

I do spend pretty much my every waking hour reading and thinking about
maths, to the extent that that's compatible with my job. But I also
find some time to participate in this forum. I also spend quite a lot
of time hanging out in sci.math and sci.logic. I am well-respected
there. I've also recently had a new idea which I'm going to write up
as a paper.

The idea of you thinking you are competent to judge my capability is a
mathematician is a new level of hilarity for you. It's the funniest
delusion you've had yet.


> >> You, rupie, with your psychotic attachment
> >>>> to logical fallacies like false bifurcation, can't let
> >>>> go of your error.
>
> > The fact that you are unable to address what I say
>
> I address it for what it's worth, and show you to be
> full of shit, which is what you're worth.

On Jun 12, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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 got it from reading your forum, the thread is called Gary Francione
> >> on
> >> Peter Singer : "Why are you surprised?" .
>
> > Could you be more specific? Which post are you referring to?
>
> Looking through my browsing history I can't find where I read that but I
> came across this quote from Gary Francione's website,
>
> "In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter
> (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be "conscientious
> omnivores" and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to eat
> only animals who have been "humanely" raised and killed.
>
> Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or vegetarian
> because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to killing
> and eating animals for food and he never has.
>
> If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the October
> issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer's own words: "I think
> people are mistaken if they think I've watered down that underlying ethical
> argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation
> I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the
> argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at
> Animal Liberation, they won't find that argument."
>
> Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory
> farming. Once we make the process more "humane," and address the issues of
> suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back to
> eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a mistake to be "too fanatical about
> insisting on a purely vegan life." Asked about his own veganism, he
> responds: "Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure." "
>
> That's not the quote I was referring to, but I thought this was as good a
> spot as any to stick it in for your reaction. It certainly makes it
> plausible that he would make such a statement. In any case it was a quote
> attributed to him, you can rely on it, fwiw, anyway, it's not that important
> to me, I have no particular investment in the ideas of any of these people.
> I have lived long enough and thought long and hard enough about these issues
> that I do not subordinate my own ideas to any others'.
>

Yes, I know all that about Singer. That's a completely different
issue. You seemed to be saying he thought there was no practicable
ethical framework that was consistent with equal consideration. I see
no evidence for that at all.

> [..]
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> I'd add here, Peter Singer's ideas are quite far removed from the
> deontological ideas of most AR advocates,
>

Yes, I know. But DeGrazia is an interesting example of a non-
utilitarian theorist who doesn't hold a strict rights view. Maybe you
should have a look at the rest of the book.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> You sure talk like one. You refer constantly to our need to act in
> >> certain
> >> ways in order to minimize animal suffering, that is a utilitarian
> >> viewpoint.
>
> > The fact that I often speak about the value of reducing suffering is
> > really not very good evidence that I am a utilitarian.
>
> Actually it is excellent evidence of exactly that. A deontologist would
> constantly refer to the fundamental rights of animals, not to the harmful
> consequences of human actions.
>

An absolutist rights position and a purely utilitarian position are
not the only options.

> [..]
>
> >> > In which case equal consideration wouldn't require us giving them any
> >> > moral consideration.
>
> >> So equal consideration is actually scaled consideration.
>
> > Equal consideration is equal consideration of relevantly similar
> > interests. Insentient beings don't have any interests.
>
> I would question that statement, every organism that can be called a "being"
> has interests, their survival strategies verify this, the real question is
> to what extent they are aware of their own interests. That leads to the
> issue of sentience, and I think it obvious that it's not something that can
> simply be said to exist or not, it exists in infinite degrees. Starting with
> the most basic of single-celled organisms moving through the animal kingdom
> through insects, fish and other animal life, then mammals, apes, and finally
> man, you have a scale of sentience, described by the height of awareness
> each species has of their own interests. I would further submit that humans'
> level of awareness is far higher in this regard than any other animal. The
> way that we all view and act towards animals validates this view as
> accurate.
>

I don't agree that insentient beings have interests. DeGrazia has a
discussion of this issue. It's true that the type of awareness you
have and your degree of cognitive complexity will make a difference to
what sort of interests you have. This all fits perfectly well into the
framework of equal consideration. You should read the rest of
DeGrazia's book, he goes into issues like this in detail.

> [..]
>
> >> >> No we don't. We protect them, which we do for many, many animals.
>
>
>
> >> > We give them a lot more protection.
>
> >> In some cases we do, not always.
>
> > Would you like to give an example?
>
> Some people cherish and protect beloved pets as if they were their own
> children. Some endangered species are protected to the point where any human
> threatening one of them can be shot on sight, such as white rhinos.
>

It's still nothing like the level of protection we give to all humans,
no matter how cognitively impaired.

>
>
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> Ah, but it's not.
>
> > Would you like to elaborate?
>
> Simply that "I" (i.e. we, us) could not be "there" because we *are* humans,
> not members of the other species.

You might as well say that I can't empathize with Negroes because I'm
not a Negro. Or, for that matter, that I can't empathize with
radically cognitively impaired humans because I'm not radically
cognitively impaired.

Rupert wrote:
> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> *consumption*.
>>
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>>
>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>
>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>> than others.
>>
>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>
>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>> devices.
>>
>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>
> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.

No, that's not the argument, ****wit.


> Also, we
> could feed more people from a given amount of land.

THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
"efficiency", ****wit.


> That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.

Exactly - a misconception.


Here ya go, cheeselog:

The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
habits of the wealthy around the world support a
world food system that diverts food resources from
the hungry.

http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm

It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
amount of vegetables. People want meat, and they're
willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
output per unit of input. The correct measure of
efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
cost of input.

So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
then it is more efficient to produce the meat.

It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
"inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; see
http://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
contained in the end product.

It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
vegetables.

On Jun 12, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> livestock.
>
> >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> than others.
>
> >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> devices.
>
> >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> I hope this helps.
>
> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
>

It is the argument that people are usually actually making.

> > Also, we
> > could feed more people from a given amount of land.
>
> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
> "efficiency", ****wit.
>

You haven't addressed that argument. This version of the argument says
that if people in developed countries ate less meat, that would have a
good effect on global food distribution. You haven't said anything
that addresses this.


> > That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
>
> Exactly - a misconception.
>
> Here ya go, cheeselog:
>
> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
> world food system that diverts food resources from
> the hungry.
>
> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
>
> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
> amount of vegetables.

But the possibility is still at least open at this stage that it has a
pernicious effect on global food distribution. You haven't said
anything that addresses this argument.

> People want meat, and they're
> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
> cost of input.
>
> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.
>

Yes, but that's nothing to do with the argument you quoted above. That
was an argument about fairness of food distribution.

> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
> contained in the end product.
>
> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
> vegetables.

Yes, that's true. However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. You
could have versions of the environmental argument and the argument
from fairness of food distribution which set some upper threshold to
how much of the bad effect in question we should tolerate.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[..]

>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
>>
>
> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it. He does
> think it's morally permitted. Everything I've said is quite consistent
> with this.

Is there anything which is *not* a moral issue in your view? Of course,
there are plenty of things which would obviously fall below the threshold of
even being worthy of debate, such as going for a walk, clipping one's
toe-nails, getting a haircut or mowing your lawn, perhaps. That is the
category into which some people place killing animals for food, not worthy
of a debate over morality. You have no valid reason to dispute that that is
his view given that is what he said it was.

On Jun 12, 3:17 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> >> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> >> therefore not requiring moral justification.
>
> > He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it. He does
> > think it's morally permitted. Everything I've said is quite consistent
> > with this.
>
> Is there anything which is *not* a moral issue in your view? Of course,
> there are plenty of things which would obviously fall below the threshold of
> even being worthy of debate, such as going for a walk, clipping one's
> toe-nails, getting a haircut or mowing your lawn, perhaps. That is the
> category into which some people place killing animals for food, not worthy
> of a debate over morality. You have no valid reason to dispute that that is
> his view given that is what he said it was.

I don't. He thinks that meat-eating is morally justified (or
permitted, if you prefer) and he also doesn't think the matter is
worthy of debate. That's what I said to start with. I did not
misrepresent his view.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>> *consumption*.
>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>> livestock.
>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>> than others.
>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>> devices.
>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>>> I hope this helps.
>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>> No, that's not the argument, ****wit.
>>
>
> It is the argument that people are usually actually making.

No. It's a separate argument that some, but not most,
make. Most make the ****witted and ill-conceived
"efficiency" argument.


>>> Also, we
>>> could feed more people from a given amount of land.
>> THAT'S the argument based on the misconception of
>> "efficiency", ****wit.
>>
>
> You haven't addressed that argument.

I *absolutely* have addressed that argument, rupie.
It's the point of the entire thread, which you have
messed up.


>>> That's the sense of "efficiency" being used.
>> Exactly - a misconception.
>>
>> Here ya go, cheeselog:
>>
>> The American fast-food diet and the meat-eating
>> habits of the wealthy around the world support a
>> world food system that diverts food resources from
>> the hungry.
>>
>> http://www.yesworld.org/info/meat.htm
>>
>> It is not inefficient to use land and other resources
>> to produce meat instead of a higher nutritional content
>> amount of vegetables.
>
> But the possibility is still at least open at this stage that it has a
> pernicious effect on global food distribution. You haven't said
> anything that addresses this argument.

I have, ****wit. That *is* the "inefficiency"
argument, and I have shown that it's useless. The
resources are *not* inefficiently used, because
physical output per unit of physical input is not the
relevant criterion. Output value per unit of input
value is the relevant criterion, and producing meat is
not inefficient based on that criterion.


>> People want meat, and they're
>> willing to pay the price of it. The correct measure of
>> efficiency is *not* the absolute amount of physical
>> output per unit of input. The correct measure of
>> efficiency is the highest *value* of output per unit
>> cost of input.
>>
>> So: if a hectare of land can produce about 20 million
>> kcal of potatoes, vs 1 million kcal of meat; but the
>> potatoes fetch $1,000, while the meat brings $1,500;
>> then it is more efficient to produce the meat.
>>
>
> Yes, but that's nothing to do with the argument you quoted above. That
> was an argument about fairness of food distribution.

No. There is no discussion about "fairness" at all,
except that it seems to be implied - but not mentioned
- by the ****witted "vegans".


>
>> It's worth noting that vegetable production can be
>> "inefficient" in exactly the same sense stupid
>> ****witted "vegans" **** and moan about; seehttp://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?PaperID=23135.
>> More energy is expended growing the potatoes than is
>> contained in the end product.
>>
>> It should be obvious that some vegetables should not be
>> grown at all, because they're less "efficient" - as
>> stupid ****witted "vegans" misuse the term - than other
>> vegetables.
>
> Yes, that's true.

There ya go!