On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> belief in 'ar'.

I wrote to Derek:

"No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
more
harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive. Inflicting any more
harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
currently being violated. But the constraint on me as an individual
living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort. And
considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
what counts as a reasonable effort. All deontologists hold that
sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."

Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
AR. Okay, fine.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>> belief in 'ar'.
>
> I wrote to Derek:
>
> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> more
> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.

Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".

> Inflicting any more
> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> currently being violated.

By you, for your comfort and convenience.

> But the constraint on me as an individual
> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.

Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
including maintaining my current lifestyle.

> And
> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> what counts as a reasonable effort.

All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
reasonable.

> All deontologists hold that
> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> AR. Okay, fine.

I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
what you believe.

On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> > more
> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>
> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>

Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

> > Inflicting any more
> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> > currently being violated.
>
> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>

Not by me. On my behalf.

> > But the constraint on me as an individual
> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>
> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>

Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?

> > And
> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>
> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> reasonable.
>

I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

> > All deontologists hold that
> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> > AR. Okay, fine.
>
> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> what you believe.

I've said quite a lot about it. I think I've been about as clear as
you. What do you want to know?

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
>>> more
>>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>
>
> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
ethics is not a solitary endeavor.


>>> Inflicting any more
>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>>> currently being violated.
>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>
>
> Not by me. On my behalf.'

No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy. You've
tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
I pounded it back up your ass with a club. It is not
"mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
repeated, fully aware participation.

Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
****. It's active participation in a process, with
your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.


>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.

It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
your supposed beliefs would impose on you.


>>> And
>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

We most certainly are, you cocksucker.


>>> All deontologists hold that
>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>>> AR. Okay, fine.
>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>> what you believe.
>
> I've said quite a lot about it.

Then you deny it.

You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.

On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >>>> belief in 'ar'.
> >>> I wrote to Derek:
> >>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >>> more
> >>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>
> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>
> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
>

I'm afraid the point you are trying to make here is lost on me.

> >>> Inflicting any more
> >>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >>> currently being violated.
> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>
> > Not by me. On my behalf.'
>
> No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy.

No, I don't. But it's not a particularly important point.

> You've
> tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.

"Financial support" is a correct description. You've engaged in some
ludicrous and comical ranting about it, which achieved nothing.

> It is not
> "mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
> repeated, fully aware participation.
>
> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
> ****. It's active participation in a process, with
> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
> financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.
>

Blah blah blah...

> >>> But the constraint on me as an individual
> >>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>
> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
>
> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
>

We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.
Why is it that your position is reasonable but I am sleazily making
"exemptions" to what my beliefs would "really" demand of me for the
sake of my comfort?

> >>> And
> >>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >> reasonable.
>
> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>
> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
>

No, not at all. My decisions about my lifestyle are a lot less self-
serving than any of yours. You're trying to tell me that I "should"
adhere to this incredibly high standard, when you yourself do pretty
much nothing. It's odd that you don't seem to feel the least
embarrassment.

> >>> All deontologists hold that
> >>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
> >>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >>> AR. Okay, fine.
> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >> what you believe.
>
> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>
> Then you deny it.
>

Nope.

> You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.

Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
the amount of suffering in the world like me, instead of farcically
calling me "amoral" and "self-serving"? You might feel better about
yourself.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>>>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
>>>>> more
>>>>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>>>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
>> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
>>
>
> I'm afraid

We know.


>>>>> Inflicting any more
>>>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>>>>> currently being violated.
>>>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>> Not by me. On my behalf.'
>> No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy.
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do. Actively, knowingly, repeatedly, and
unnecessarily. Proved.


>> You've tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
>> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.
>
> "Financial support" is a correct description.

It is not, rupie. It's a responsibility-shirking
dodge, as has been proved. It's an attempt to
minimize, invalidly and unethically, the depth and
extent of your involvement in animal slaughter. You
*KNOW*, you ****, that it is not "mere" financial
support. You also know, you smelly ****, that although
you don't explicitly use the word "mere", it is tightly
woven into the meaning of "financial support". You are
trying, without success, to minimize the extent of your
complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.


>> It is not
>> "mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
>> repeated, fully aware participation.
>>
>> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
>> ****. It's active participation in a process, with
>> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
>> financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.
>>
>
> Blah blah blah...

Concession noted.


>>>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
>>>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>>>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>>>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
>>>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
>> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
>> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
>> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
>> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
>> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
>> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
>>
>
> We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
> animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
> avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.

LISTEN, you skinny girlish cocksucker: if someone
credibly told you that all "Persian" rugs were woven by
Pakistani child slave labor, how many would you buy?


>>>>> And
>>>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>>>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
>>>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>>>> reasonable.
>>> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
>>> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
>>
>
> No, not at all.

Yes, at all, you skinny feminine cocksucker.


>>>>> All deontologists hold that
>>>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>>>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>>>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>>>>> AR. Okay, fine.
>>>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>>>> what you believe.
>>> I've said quite a lot about it.
>> Then you deny it.
>>
>
> Nope.

Yep.


>> You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.
>
> Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
> the amount of suffering in the world like me

You don't do a ****ing thing to reduce suffering, you
lying shitbag.

On Jul 12, 4:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> legroups.com...
> >>>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >>>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >>>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >>>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >>>>>> belief in 'ar'.
> >>>>> I wrote to Derek:
> >>>>> "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >>>>> more
> >>>>> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
> >>>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
> >>> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
> >> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
> >> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
>
> > I'm afraid
>
> We know.
>
> >>>>> Inflicting any more
> >>>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >>>>> currently being violated.
> >>>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
> >>> Not by me. On my behalf.'
> >> No,

Let's go back up here again. Never mind about whether I "participate
in the process", whatever that means. I am not the one doing the
farming. By the time I get to the supermarket the rights have already
been violated. The rights are not being violated by me, they are being
violated on my behalf. That much is very clear.

> you participate in the process, skirt-boy.
>
> > No, I don't.
>
> Yes, you do. Actively, knowingly, repeatedly, and
> unnecessarily. Proved.
>
> >> You've tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
> >> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.
>
> > "Financial support" is a correct description.
>
> It is not, rupie. It's a responsibility-shirking
> dodge, as has been proved. It's an attempt to
> minimize, invalidly and unethically, the depth and
> extent of your involvement in animal slaughter. You
> *KNOW*, you ****, that it is not "mere" financial
> support. You also know, you smelly ****, that although
> you don't explicitly use the word "mere", it is tightly
> woven into the meaning of "financial support".

No. I don't know this.

> You are
> trying, without success, to minimize the extent of your
> complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>
> >> It is not
> >> "mere" financial support, you **** - it is active,
> >> repeated, fully aware participation.
>
> >> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
> >> ****. It's active participation in a process, with
> >> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
> >> financial support", you filthy goddamned ****ing ****.
>
> > Blah blah blah...
>
> Concession noted.
>

Loss of contact with reality noted.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
> >>>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >>>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
> >>>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> >>>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
> >>> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
> >> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
> >> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
> >> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
> >> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat ****,
> >> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
> >> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
>
> > We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
> > animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
> > avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.
>
> LISTEN, you skinny girlish cocksucker: if someone
> credibly told you that all "Persian" rugs were woven by
> Pakistani child slave labor, how many would you buy?
>

None.

> >>>>> And
> >>>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >>>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
> >>>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >>>> reasonable.
> >>> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> >>> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
> >> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
>
> > No, not at all.
>
> Yes, at all, you skinny feminine cocksucker.
>

It really is a joke. When you've invested as much time and money as I
have into ethical goals that go beyond yourself and your immediate
family, when you've changed your lifestyle and made career decisions
based on your ethics, then you can start talking to me about how self-
serving and lacking in seriousness about ethics I am.

Oh, and please stop fantasizing about me sucking your cock. It's not
going to happen.

> >>>>> All deontologists hold that
> >>>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >>>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >>>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
> >>>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >>>>> AR. Okay, fine.
> >>>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >>>> what you believe.
> >>> I've said quite a lot about it.
> >> Then you deny it.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> >> You gutless, amoral, self-serving ****.
>
> > Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
> > the amount of suffering in the world like me
>
> You don't do a ****ing thing to reduce suffering, you
> lying shitbag.

Don't you ever get tired of making up rubbish about things you don't
know anything about?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>> >> belief in 'ar'.
>>
>> > I wrote to Derek:
>>
>> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
>> > more
>> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>>
>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>
>
> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

Society will never be what you want it to be, but you can control how you
live, what principles you choose to live by.


>> > Inflicting any more
>> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>> > currently being violated.
>>
>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>
>
> Not by me. On my behalf.

Right, but as the consumers are the driving force behind the system we share
in the complicity.

>> > But the constraint on me as an individual
>> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>>
>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to
>> mean,
>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
> conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?

That's what open to interpretation means.

>
>> > And
>> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>>
>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

Not all of them, but a significant number of them are, they have to be.

>> > All deontologists hold that
>> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>
>> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>> > AR. Okay, fine.
>>
>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>> what you believe.
>
> I've said quite a lot about it.

You type a lot but you don't reveal anything.

> I think I've been about as clear as
> you.

You always say that, but it's not true. You're not clear at all, you deal in
generalities, other people's ideas, not what you specifically believe.

> What do you want to know?

I hope you answered in the last post.

On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> >> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> >> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >> > more
> >> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>
> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>
> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>
> Society will never be what you want it to be, but you can control how you
> live, what principles you choose to live by.
>

Yes.

> >> > Inflicting any more
> >> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >> > currently being violated.
>
> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>
> > Not by me. On my behalf.
>
> Right, but as the consumers are the driving force behind the system we share
> in the complicity.
>

Sure. But in my view there are some limits to the obligation to avoid
complicity in harm.

> >> > But the constraint on me as an individual
> >> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>
> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to
> >> mean,
> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>
> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
> > conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?
>
> That's what open to interpretation means.
>

No, it's not. Consider the following moral rule: "You should make
every reasonable effort to be considerate towards your friends". Most
people would accept that moral rule and find that it gave them some
concrete guidance. It's difficult to define exactly what counts as
"reasonable", but there are some clear-cut cases.

>
>
> >> > And
> >> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>
> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >> reasonable.
>
> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>
> Not all of them, but a significant number of them are, they have to be.
>

Yes, all right, and it is the same with you, so... ?

> >> > All deontologists hold that
> >> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> >> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >> > AR. Okay, fine.
>
> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >> what you believe.
>
> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>
> You type a lot but you don't reveal anything.
>
> > I think I've been about as clear as
> > you.
>
> You always say that, but it's not true.

Well, you think it's not true. It's probably not profitable to argue
about it. Either I feel inclined to make further efforts to make
myself clear to you or I don't.

> You're not clear at all, you deal in
> generalities, other people's ideas, not what you specifically believe.
>

There's nothing wrong with referring to a book which someone else
wrote in order to explain what I believe, if I happen to agree with
some of the ideas in the book. That book outlines a position which is
certainly at least as clearly defined as yours, and goes into a lot
more detail trying to justify it. And I'm inclined to agree with most
of the positions taken in that back. If you'd had a look at Chapter 9
you'd know a bit more about them.


> > What do you want to know?
>
> I hope you answered in the last post.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. You hope I answered what where?

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>> >> > I wrote to Derek:
>>
>> >> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
>> >> > more
>> >> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>>
>> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>
>> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>>
>> Society will never be what you want it to be, but you can control how you
>> live, what principles you choose to live by.
>>
>
> Yes.

Live by.. not profess to. There is a big difference.

>> >> > Inflicting any more
>> >> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints
>> >> > are
>> >> > currently being violated.
>>
>> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>
>> > Not by me. On my behalf.
>>
>> Right, but as the consumers are the driving force behind the system we
>> share
>> in the complicity.
>>
>
> Sure. But in my view there are some limits to the obligation to avoid
> complicity in harm.

So you say but never define.

>> >> > But the constraint on me as an individual
>> >> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort
>> >> > to
>> >> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>>
>> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to
>> >> mean,
>> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>
>> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
>> > conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?
>>
>> That's what open to interpretation means.
>>
>
> No, it's not.

Yes it is.

> Consider the following moral rule: "You should make
> every reasonable effort to be considerate towards your friends". Most
> people would accept that moral rule and find that it gave them some
> concrete guidance. It's difficult to define exactly what counts as
> "reasonable", but there are some clear-cut cases.

That didn't clarify anything.

>
>>
>>
>> >> > And
>> >> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant
>> >> > to
>> >> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>>
>> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>> >> reasonable.
>>
>> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
>> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>>
>> Not all of them, but a significant number of them are, they have to be.
>>
>
> Yes, all right, and it is the same with you, so... ?

I have no qualms about harming animals per se, with notable exceptions. You
*appear* to be saying that there is some broad moral restriction on harming
animals that I ought to adhere to, but you don't define what it is. You say
there is this obligation but you don't define how you arrive at it or
quantify it much less live by it. Then you say that you have an exemption
but you don't say how you arrive at the exemption. It's all completely
amorphous.

>
>> >> > All deontologists hold that
>> >> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>> >> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>> >> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>
>> >> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief
>> >> > in
>> >> > AR. Okay, fine.
>>
>> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and
>> >> unequivocally
>> >> what you believe.
>>
>> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>>
>> You type a lot but you don't reveal anything.
>>
>> > I think I've been about as clear as
>> > you.
>>
>> You always say that, but it's not true.
>
> Well, you think it's not true. It's probably not profitable to argue
> about it. Either I feel inclined to make further efforts to make
> myself clear to you or I don't.

Right, and I am growing weary of watching you beat about the bush.

>> You're not clear at all, you deal in
>> generalities, other people's ideas, not what you specifically believe.
>>
>
> There's nothing wrong with referring to a book which someone else
> wrote in order to explain what I believe, if I happen to agree with
> some of the ideas in the book. That book outlines a position which is
> certainly at least as clearly defined as yours, and goes into a lot
> more detail trying to justify it. And I'm inclined to agree with most
> of the positions taken in that back. If you'd had a look at Chapter 9
> you'd know a bit more about them.

Not good enough, you've been trying to pass off this "go read a book" tactic
since the beginning, it doesn't wash. I'm discussing the issues with YOU. If
YOU can't explain what you think then I'm not interested. I explained what I
believe and why, AND I referred to an essay ONLINE to support my position.
>
>
>> > What do you want to know?
>>
>> I hope you answered in the last post.
>
> Sorry, I don't quite follow this. You hope I answered what where?

I asked for "details" of your position on animals in the previous post. I
didn't get them, you gave me a wordy account of how you expect people to
behave when debating against you and said nothing at all about your position
on harming animals. You're just not ready for this forum as far as I can
tell.

On Jul 13, 1:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> >> >> > "No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.
>
> >> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>
> >> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>
> >> Society will never be what you want it to be, but you can control how you
> >> live, what principles you choose to live by.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Live by.. not profess to. There is a big difference.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > Inflicting any more
> >> >> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > currently being violated.
>
> >> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>
> >> > Not by me. On my behalf.
>
> >> Right, but as the consumers are the driving force behind the system we
> >> share
> >> in the complicity.
>
> > Sure. But in my view there are some limits to the obligation to avoid
> > complicity in harm.
>
> So you say but never define.
>

There's a lot you haven't defined about your position as well. You
haven't defined how extensive the obligation is to reduce the stress
experienced by the animals we farm.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> > But the constraint on me as an individual
> >> >> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>
> >> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to
> >> >> mean,
> >> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>
> >> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
> >> > conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?
>
> >> That's what open to interpretation means.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > Consider the following moral rule: "You should make
> > every reasonable effort to be considerate towards your friends". Most
> > people would accept that moral rule and find that it gave them some
> > concrete guidance. It's difficult to define exactly what counts as
> > "reasonable", but there are some clear-cut cases.
>
> That didn't clarify anything.
>

You advocate a moral rule "We should reduce the stress of the animals
we farm." How much? Would it not be fair to paraphrase it as "Make
every reasonable effort to reduce the stress of the animals we farm"?
You've done no more by way of giving clear guidance as to what counts
as acceptable farming than I have.

Your notions of "moral person" and "capability" are quite vague too.
You think that understanding them is just a matter of common sense.
You say you've referred me to a "clear-cutt rebuttal of the argument
from marginal cases". It crucially rests on this notion of
"capability" and when you ask me for clarification you just say it's a
matter of common sense. At least when you asked me for clarification
of "equal consideration" I made a bit more of an effort. I've been
trying to be more polite with you than you were with me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > And
> >> >> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>
> >> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >> >> reasonable.
>
> >> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> >> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>
> >> Not all of them, but a significant number of them are, they have to be.
>
> > Yes, all right, and it is the same with you, so... ?
>
> I have no qualms about harming animals per se, with notable exceptions. You
> *appear* to be saying that there is some broad moral restriction on harming
> animals that I ought to adhere to, but you don't define what it is. You say
> there is this obligation but you don't define how you arrive at it or
> quantify it much less live by it. Then you say that you have an exemption
> but you don't say how you arrive at the exemption. It's all completely
> amorphous.
>

It's no more amorphous than the principles advocated in the essay
which is supposed to be the foundation for your position. The author
of that essay also thinks there are some moral restrictions on harming
animals and financially supporting harm to them, and he doesn't do any
more by way of quantifying them than I do. Nor do you do any more by
way of quantifying the weaker moral restrictions which you think
apply.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > All deontologists hold that
> >> >> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >> >> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >> >> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> >> >> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > AR. Okay, fine.
>
> >> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and
> >> >> unequivocally
> >> >> what you believe.
>
> >> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>
> >> You type a lot but you don't reveal anything.
>
> >> > I think I've been about as clear as
> >> > you.
>
> >> You always say that, but it's not true.
>
> > Well, you think it's not true. It's probably not profitable to argue
> > about it. Either I feel inclined to make further efforts to make
> > myself clear to you or I don't.
>
> Right, and I am growing weary of watching you beat about the bush.
>

Well, I'm not particularly concerned about any frustration you may be
experiencing. I've had a lot more cause for frustration than you. I'll
do what I please.

> >> You're not clear at all, you deal in
> >> generalities, other people's ideas, not what you specifically believe.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with referring to a book which someone else
> > wrote in order to explain what I believe, if I happen to agree with
> > some of the ideas in the book. That book outlines a position which is
> > certainly at least as clearly defined as yours, and goes into a lot
> > more detail trying to justify it. And I'm inclined to agree with most
> > of the positions taken in that back. If you'd had a look at Chapter 9
> > you'd know a bit more about them.
>
> Not good enough, you've been trying to pass off this "go read a book" tactic
> since the beginning, it doesn't wash. I'm discussing the issues with YOU. If
> YOU can't explain what you think then I'm not interested. I explained what I
> believe and why, AND I referred to an essay ONLINE to support my position.
>

Even if we accept the alleged rebuttal of the argument from marginal
cases in that essay, there's no clear-cut sense in which it supports
your position more than mine. The foundations for your position are
just as vague as the foundations for mine.

I too have explained what I believe and why, and have referred to a
book and an online essay written by me which I believe support my
position. I may make further efforts to clarify and support my
position if I feel inclined. I think you should appreciate me taking
the trouble, rather than rudely asking me to "just answer the
question", when I have already given you simple answers and got abuse
for my trouble. This isn't an exercise in trying to gain your
approval, you know. If I want to gain respect for my intellectual
capacities and expository skills then I can seek it from people whose
judgement I actually respect. I really have no motive for bothering
unless I think you are likely to give me feedback which I might find
interesting. If you're not interested, then we can leave it.


>
>
> >> > What do you want to know?
>
> >> I hope you answered in the last post.
>
> > Sorry, I don't quite follow this. You hope I answered what where?
>
> I asked for "details" of your position on animals in the previous post. I
> didn't get them, you gave me a wordy account of how you expect people to
> behave when debating against you and said nothing at all about your position
> on harming animals. You're just not ready for this forum as far as I can
> tell.

What was all that about condescension, you tiresome obnoxious prat?

You started telling me how you expected me to behave, so I assumed we
were in the process of negotiating an agreement whereby we tried to
stop annoying each other so much. Apparently you feel entitled to
lecture me about my behaviour without making any concessions to my
views about reasonable behaviour yourself. You say you don't like my
behaviour, well, there are ways you can go about getting me to change
it, but this ain't it.

I really have no obligation to take the trouble to make myself clear
to you. I think what I've said so far should be clear enough. You
don't find it clear, well, I may make further efforts, if I do it'll
be just because I want to.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>> belief in 'ar'.
>
> I wrote to Derek:
>
> "No, I do not.

Derek showed that you do.

On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> > "No, I do not.
>
> Derek showed that you do.

Well, he didn't reply to my post. I believe that it is morally
permissible to follow a lifestyle which involves buying products which
were produced in ways that caused animal deaths, when that is the only
way to avail oneself of an opportunity to alleviate a larger amount of
suffering in other ways. However, I reject the claim that this is
correctly described as "killing animals".

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>> "No, I do not.
>> Derek showed that you do.
>
> Well, he didn't reply to my post.

He replied to plenty of them, and he showed that you
believe in 'ar'.

On Jul 12, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >>>> belief in 'ar'.
> >>> I wrote to Derek:
> >>> "No, I do not.
> >> Derek showed that you do.
>
> > Well, he didn't reply to my post.
>
> He replied to plenty of them, and he showed that you
> believe in 'ar'.

That must be sad for him, when he explicitly stated that his ambition
was to do the opposite.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>>>> "No, I do not.
>>>> Derek showed that you do.
>>> Well, he didn't reply to my post.
>> He replied to plenty of them, and he showed that you
>> believe in 'ar'.
>
> That must be sad for him,

It was entertaining.