On Jul 13, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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
> oglegroups.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"
>
> No, we DO pay attention to that, skirt-boy, because it
> is the basic problem with your pose; the proof that you
> are a lying hypocrite if you claim to believe in 'ar',
> as you do claim.

Your evidence for that being the statements I made to Derek. So
somehow those statements combined with my behaviour show that I am a
lying hypocrite. I eagerly await further elaboration on this matter.

> It is what demolishes your attempt at
> downplaying and minimizing your role. It is what shows
> that you are a regular, active participant in an
> on-going process from which you *could*, if you had any
> conscience, withdraw. But you choose, despite the
> mountains of accumulated evidence regarding the
> lethality of crop agriculture, to keep right on
> participating.
>

Yes, and... ?

> You are not passive in this process, rupie. You are an
> active participant, who claims to know what goes on.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, you do know it, rupie, you smarmy liar, because
> *I* know it, and I have told you for months.

Yes, but I don't accept without question everything you say,
particularly when you constantly assert as fact ludicrous nonsense
which I know to be false.

> It is
> brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
> downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
> financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
> participation.

It is not obvious to me, and I would have thought I would have more
insight than you into what I intended to mean by the phrase.

> I have told you, you smelly ****, that
> it is not as if entries just appear, passively, in your
> bank account; no, you ACTIVELY go to the shops and
> choose the foods and fork over the money for them.

This is not in contention.

> You
> know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
> over the money, you are buying animal death.

Yes, that's right. I'm financially supporting processes that cause
animal death. That's what I said. But for some reason the way I say it
causes you to burst a blood vessel.

> You can't
> escape this undeniable fact, rupie - not as long as you
> participate here, and I'm around to keep pounding it
> into you.
>
> >> You are trying, without success, to minimize the extent of
> >> your complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>
> And your attempt at minimizing and downplaying will
> *always* fail, rupie.
>
> >>>> 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
>
> Yours, rupie. You fantasize that you are fooling
> anyone with this "merely financial" bullshit. Most of
> all, it's clear you're trying to fool yourself. I
> don't let you.
>

You say tomahto, I say tomato. It just so happens that the objections
you have to the way I choose to describe the situation are obscure to
me. Your fantasy that I was somehow making a "concession" to you was
very amusing. I buy food, the production of this food involved animals
dying. That is not in dispute. As far as I'm concerned, when I say
that I "financially support" processes that kill animals I am saying
the same thing. You don't like that way of putting it. Whatever. You
want to try and convince me that I have made statements that logically
entail that what I am doing is wrong. Keep going if you feel so
inclined.


>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> Bullshit. Based on your excuse-making for the
> blood-drenched vegetables you buy, rupie, you might as
> well buy as many rugs as you would like to have,
> because you could rationalize it in exactly the same
> way. In fact, you could rationalize it even better,
> rupie, because the Pakistani slave child rug weavers
> aren't killed - they always have the hope of escaping
> or being freed. A nest of rodents chopped to bits so
> you, skirt-boy rupie, can eat, have lost everything.
>

There are quite a few important differences, the most notable one
being the much greater difficulty involved in not buying the products
of commercial agriculture.

> You have no coherent way to draw the line that (you
> say) puts the Pakistani slave children within the scope
> of your moral concern, while the field animals chopped
> to bits so you can eat remain outside the scope.
> Unless...could it be...SPECIESISM? Yes, that must be it.
>

Species is not a relevant consideration, no.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> You sure are, you skinny feminine clueless urbanite
> cocksucker.
>

Well, I'm quite sure you feel that way, and I can assure you the
feeling is mutual. You are the most ludicrous clown I have ever
encountered.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> 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?
>
> I know that you don't _do_ anything, rupie, apart from
> empty blabber. You are not an "activist" in any way.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not an activist, I don't do anything to reduce
suffering, I don't do maths, I'm going to be a career telemarketer,
I'm queer, I'm psychotic, blah blah blah.... I wonder if you actually
expect anyone to take this stuff seriously.

On Jul 12, 5:44 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > 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
> > oglegroups.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"
>
> > No, we DO pay attention to that, skirt-boy, because it
> > is the basic problem with your pose; the proof that you
> > are a lying hypocrite if you claim to believe in 'ar',
> > as you do claim.
>
> Your evidence for that being the statements I made to Derek. So
> somehow those statements combined with my behaviour show that I am a
> lying hypocrite. I eagerly await further elaboration on this matter.

No more is needed, time-waster - your hypocrisy and dishonesty are
established.


> > It is what demolishes your attempt at
> > downplaying and minimizing your role. It is what shows
> > that you are a regular, active participant in an
> > on-going process from which you *could*, if you had any
> > conscience, withdraw. But you choose, despite the
> > mountains of accumulated evidence regarding the
> > lethality of crop agriculture, to keep right on
> > participating.
>
> Yes, and... ?

And so you're guilty of hypocrisy. You don't live and act according
to what you claim to be your beliefs.


> > You are not passive in this process, rupie. You are an
> > active participant, who claims to know what goes on.
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > Yes, you do know it, rupie, you smarmy liar, because
> > *I* know it, and I have told you for months.
>
> Yes, but I don't accept without question everything you say,

You don't have any valid ground for rejecting it, rupie. Your
discomfiture isn't a valid ground, boy.


> > It is
> > brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
> > downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
> > financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
> > participation.
>
> It is not obvious to me

Yes, it is, rupie.


> > I have told you, you smelly ****, that
> > it is not as if entries just appear, passively, in your
> > bank account; no, you ACTIVELY go to the shops and
> > choose the foods and fork over the money for them.
>
> This is not in contention.

It is when you try to downplay and minimize it by calling your
participation "MERELY financial" support. It also is in contention,
but only by you, when you blabber, "Wha...what do you mean?" when I
talk about your participation. You're just trying to obfuscate and
waste time, shitbag.


> > You
> > know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
> > over the money, you are buying animal death.
>
> Yes, that's right. I'm financially supporting

No. You're actively participating and knowingly rewarding the
killers. There it is again: the dirty, desperate attempt to downplay
and minimize your involvement.


> > You can't
> > escape this undeniable fact, rupie - not as long as you
> > participate here, and I'm around to keep pounding it
> > into you.
>
> > >> You are trying, without success, to minimize the extent of
> > >> your complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>
> > And your attempt at minimizing and downplaying will
> > *always* fail, rupie.
>
> > >>>> 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
>
> > Yours, rupie. You fantasize that you are fooling
> > anyone with this "merely financial" bullshit. Most of
> > all, it's clear you're trying to fool yourself. I
> > don't let you.
>
> You say

I say, "hypocrite". To you, rupie - you are one.


> > >>>>>>> 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.
>
> > Bullshit. Based on your excuse-making for the
> > blood-drenched vegetables you buy, rupie, you might as
> > well buy as many rugs as you would like to have,
> > because you could rationalize it in exactly the same
> > way. In fact, you could rationalize it even better,
> > rupie, because the Pakistani slave child rug weavers
> > aren't killed - they always have the hope of escaping
> > or being freed. A nest of rodents chopped to bits so
> > you, skirt-boy rupie, can eat, have lost everything.
>
> There are quite a few important differences, the most notable one
> being the much greater difficulty involved in not buying the products
> of commercial agriculture.

No, that has no bearing on it, rupie. If you're going to do the right
thing, you just have to do it. You're not doing it. Your
"minimizing" is a cruel, evil joke.


> > You have no coherent way to draw the line that (you
> > say) puts the Pakistani slave children within the scope
> > of your moral concern, while the field animals chopped
> > to bits so you can eat remain outside the scope.
> > Unless...could it be...SPECIESISM? Yes, that must be it.
>
> Species is not a relevant consideration, no.

That is precisely what it is, liar.


> > >>>>>>> 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.
>
> > You sure are, you skinny feminine clueless urbanite
> > cocksucker.
>
> Well, I'm quite sure

So are we.


> > >>>>>>> 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?
>
> > I know that you don't _do_ anything, rupie, apart from
> > empty blabber. You are not an "activist" in any way.
>
> Yeah, yeah, I'm not an activist

That's what I just said.

On Jul 13, 10:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:44 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > oglegroups.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"
>
> > > No, we DO pay attention to that, skirt-boy, because it
> > > is the basic problem with your pose; the proof that you
> > > are a lying hypocrite if you claim to believe in 'ar',
> > > as you do claim.
>
> > Your evidence for that being the statements I made to Derek. So
> > somehow those statements combined with my behaviour show that I am a
> > lying hypocrite. I eagerly await further elaboration on this matter.
>
> No more is needed, time-waster - your hypocrisy and dishonesty are
> established.
>

Well, that's that, then. I guess we can move on to another topic now.

> > > It is what demolishes your attempt at
> > > downplaying and minimizing your role. It is what shows
> > > that you are a regular, active participant in an
> > > on-going process from which you *could*, if you had any
> > > conscience, withdraw. But you choose, despite the
> > > mountains of accumulated evidence regarding the
> > > lethality of crop agriculture, to keep right on
> > > participating.
>
> > Yes, and... ?
>
> And so you're guilty of hypocrisy. You don't live and act according
> to what you claim to be your beliefs.
>

How exactly does this follow?

> > > You are not passive in this process, rupie. You are an
> > > active participant, who claims to know what goes on.
>
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > Yes, you do know it, rupie, you smarmy liar, because
> > > *I* know it, and I have told you for months.
>
> > Yes, but I don't accept without question everything you say,
>
> You don't have any valid ground for rejecting it, rupie. Your
> discomfiture isn't a valid ground, boy.
>

Yes, I do have a valid ground for rejecting it: I know what I mean by
"financial support" and I know that you're talking nonsense. This is
not an uncommon situation. You confidently make some statement about
me and assert that it is established beyond all question, when
obviously I would be in a position to know and you would not be in a
position to have a clue, and I know perfectly well that you are
talking nonsense. You surely must sometimes be aware that this is the
case, but it doesn't seem to stop you doing it. I guess you don't
particularly care about being taken seriously.

> > > It is
> > > brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
> > > downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
> > > financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
> > > participation.
>
> > It is not obvious to me
>
> Yes, it is, rupie.
>

Okay, so you want to make up stories about me. That's pretty much all
you do. Fine. Maybe we can get back to how everyone in Animal
Liberation is queer, or about how you're competent to judge the
quality of my paper, or about how I was doomed to be stuck in
telemarketing for the rest of my life. Those were real gems.

> > > I have told you, you smelly ****, that
> > > it is not as if entries just appear, passively, in your
> > > bank account; no, you ACTIVELY go to the shops and
> > > choose the foods and fork over the money for them.
>
> > This is not in contention.
>
> It is when you try to downplay and minimize it by calling your
> participation "MERELY financial" support.

It is not in contention when I speak of financial support. That is
just another way of saying the same thing. How you cannot see this is
beyond me.

> It also is in contention,
> but only by you, when you blabber, "Wha...what do you mean?" when I
> talk about your participation.

Somehow you want to argue that this means what I do goes beyond
financial support. This is what I don't get. I don't see any
meaningful sense in which the above goes beyond financial support.
"Financial support" seems to be a perfectly reasonable way of
describing it.

> You're just trying to obfuscate and
> waste time, shitbag.
>

Well, I agree it is a bit of a waste of time, but you're the one who
insists on making a big deal about the matter.

> > > You
> > > know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
> > > over the money, you are buying animal death.
>
> > Yes, that's right. I'm financially supporting
>
> No. You're actively participating and knowingly rewarding the
> killers. There it is again: the dirty, desperate attempt to downplay
> and minimize your involvement.
>

What on earth is the difference between "financially supporting" and
"buying"? What planet do you live on?

What is your point, anyway? I agree that there is an obligation to
make some effort to avoid buying products which were produced in
harmful ways. I also think that there is some limit to this
obligation. Everyone agrees with this, so what is your point?

> > > You can't
> > > escape this undeniable fact, rupie - not as long as you
> > > participate here, and I'm around to keep pounding it
> > > into you.
>
> > > >> You are trying, without success, to minimize the extent of
> > > >> your complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>
> > > And your attempt at minimizing and downplaying will
> > > *always* fail, rupie.
>
> > > >>>> 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
>
> > > Yours, rupie. You fantasize that you are fooling
> > > anyone with this "merely financial" bullshit. Most of
> > > all, it's clear you're trying to fool yourself. I
> > > don't let you.
>
> > You say
>
> I say, "hypocrite". To you, rupie - you are one.
>

Well, if it brings you joy, much good may it do you.

> > > >>>>>>> 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.
>
> > > Bullshit. Based on your excuse-making for the
> > > blood-drenched vegetables you buy, rupie, you might as
> > > well buy as many rugs as you would like to have,
> > > because you could rationalize it in exactly the same
> > > way. In fact, you could rationalize it even better,
> > > rupie, because the Pakistani slave child rug weavers
> > > aren't killed - they always have the hope of escaping
> > > or being freed. A nest of rodents chopped to bits so
> > > you, skirt-boy rupie, can eat, have lost everything.
>
> > There are quite a few important differences, the most notable one
> > being the much greater difficulty involved in not buying the products
> > of commercial agriculture.
>
> No, that has no bearing on it, rupie. If you're going to do the right
> thing, you just have to do it. You're not doing it. Your
> "minimizing" is a cruel, evil joke.
>

So why are you not doing it? Because you stipulate that if a being
happens not to be of the same species as us, then we have the right to
exploit it as we please, with absolutely no limits, in order to
satisfy any preferences we may have. How is that less of a "cruel,
evil joke" than my stance?

> > > You have no coherent way to draw the line that (you
> > > say) puts the Pakistani slave children within the scope
> > > of your moral concern, while the field animals chopped
> > > to bits so you can eat remain outside the scope.
> > > Unless...could it be...SPECIESISM? Yes, that must be it.
>
> > Species is not a relevant consideration, no.
>
> That is precisely what it is, liar.
>

No, if there were a similar level of difficulty involved in avoiding
products whose production harmed humans with similar cognitive
capacities, I would judge the issue in the same way.

> > > >>>>>>> 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.
>
> > > You sure are, you skinny feminine clueless urbanite
> > > cocksucker.
>
> > Well, I'm quite sure
>
> So are we.
>
> > > >>>>>>> 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?
>
> > > I know that you don't _do_ anything, rupie, apart from
> > > empty blabber. You are not an "activist" in any way.
>
> > Yeah, yeah, I'm not an activist
>
> That's what I just said.

Yes, but do you actually believe it, I wonder? I'm not an activist, I
don't do maths, I'm going to be a career telemarketer, I'm queer, I'm
psychotic, I'm self-serving and amoral... these things all have the
same level of credibility to me. Do you really believe all of them
with absolute certainty? I mean, I have a hard time believing you
really think I'm queer. I think you're just saying it in a lame
attempt to irritate me. (All it actually succeeds in doing is
providing me with entertainment). But it's hard to be sure. And did
you really, in all honesty, think that I was doomed to be stuck in
telemarketing for the rest of my life? That really was a silly idea of
yours, Ball. I wonder whether you really did believe it. You're a very
strange case.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 5:44 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 12:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>> Let's go back up here again. Never mind about whether I "participate
>>>>> in the process"
>>>> No, we DO pay attention to that, skirt-boy, because it
>>>> is the basic problem with your pose; the proof that you
>>>> are a lying hypocrite if you claim to believe in 'ar',
>>>> as you do claim.
>>> Your evidence for that being the statements I made to Derek. So
>>> somehow those statements combined with my behaviour show that I am a
>>> lying hypocrite. I eagerly await further elaboration on this matter.
>> No more is needed, time-waster - your hypocrisy and dishonesty are
>> established.
>>
>
> Well, that's that, then. I guess we can move on to another topic now.
>
>>>> It is what demolishes your attempt at
>>>> downplaying and minimizing your role. It is what shows
>>>> that you are a regular, active participant in an
>>>> on-going process from which you *could*, if you had any
>>>> conscience, withdraw. But you choose, despite the
>>>> mountains of accumulated evidence regarding the
>>>> lethality of crop agriculture, to keep right on
>>>> participating.
>>> Yes, and... ?
>> And so you're guilty of hypocrisy. You don't live and act according
>> to what you claim to be your beliefs.
>>
>
> How exactly does this follow?
>
>>>> You are not passive in this process, rupie. You are an
>>>> active participant, who claims to know what goes on.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Yes, you do know it, rupie, you smarmy liar, because
>>>> *I* know it, and I have told you for months.
>>> Yes, but I don't accept without question everything you say,
>> You don't have any valid ground for rejecting it, rupie. Your
>> discomfiture isn't a valid ground, boy.
>>
>
> Yes, I do have a valid ground for rejecting it: I know what I mean by
> "financial support" and I know that you're talking nonsense. This is
> not an uncommon situation. You confidently make some statement about
> me and assert that it is established beyond all question, when
> obviously I would be in a position to know and you would not be in a
> position to have a clue, and I know perfectly well that you are
> talking nonsense. You surely must sometimes be aware that this is the
> case, but it doesn't seem to stop you doing it. I guess you don't
> particularly care about being taken seriously.
>
>>>> It is
>>>> brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
>>>> downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
>>>> financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
>>>> participation.
>>> It is not obvious to me
>> Yes, it is, rupie.
>>
>
> Okay, so you want to make up stories about me. That's pretty much all
> you do. Fine. Maybe we can get back to how everyone in Animal
> Liberation is queer, or about how you're competent to judge the
> quality of my paper, or about how I was doomed to be stuck in
> telemarketing for the rest of my life. Those were real gems.
>
>>>> I have told you, you smelly ****, that
>>>> it is not as if entries just appear, passively, in your
>>>> bank account; no, you ACTIVELY go to the shops and
>>>> choose the foods and fork over the money for them.
>>> This is not in contention.
>> It is when you try to downplay and minimize it by calling your
>> participation "MERELY financial" support.
>
> It is not in contention when I speak of financial support. That is
> just another way of saying the same thing. How you cannot see this is
> beyond me.
>
>> It also is in contention,
>> but only by you, when you blabber, "Wha...what do you mean?" when I
>> talk about your participation.
>
> Somehow you want to argue that this means what I do goes beyond
> financial support. This is what I don't get. I don't see any
> meaningful sense in which the above goes beyond financial support.
> "Financial support" seems to be a perfectly reasonable way of
> describing it.
>
>> You're just trying to obfuscate and
>> waste time, shitbag.
>>
>
> Well, I agree it is a bit of a waste of time, but you're the one who
> insists on making a big deal about the matter.
>
>>>> You
>>>> know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
>>>> over the money, you are buying animal death.
>>> Yes, that's right. I'm financially supporting
>> No. You're actively participating and knowingly rewarding the
>> killers. There it is again: the dirty, desperate attempt to downplay
>> and minimize your involvement.
>>
>
> What on earth is the difference between "financially supporting" and
> "buying"? What planet do you live on?
>
> What is your point, anyway? I agree that there is an obligation to
> make some effort to avoid buying products which were produced in
> harmful ways. I also think that there is some limit to this
> obligation. Everyone agrees with this, so what is your point?
>
>>>> You can't
>>>> escape this undeniable fact, rupie - not as long as you
>>>> participate here, and I'm around to keep pounding it
>>>> into you.
>>>>>> You are trying, without success, to minimize the extent of
>>>>>> your complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.
>>>> And your attempt at minimizing and downplaying will
>>>> *always* fail, rupie.
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> Yours, rupie. You fantasize that you are fooling
>>>> anyone with this "merely financial" bullshit. Most of
>>>> all, it's clear you're trying to fool yourself. I
>>>> don't let you.
>>> You say
>> I say, "hypocrite". To you, rupie - you are one.
>>
>
> Well, if it brings you joy, much good may it do you.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Bullshit. Based on your excuse-making for the
>>>> blood-drenched vegetables you buy, rupie, you might as
>>>> well buy as many rugs as you would like to have,
>>>> because you could rationalize it in exactly the same
>>>> way. In fact, you could rationalize it even better,
>>>> rupie, because the Pakistani slave child rug weavers
>>>> aren't killed - they always have the hope of escaping
>>>> or being freed. A nest of rodents chopped to bits so
>>>> you, skirt-boy rupie, can eat, have lost everything.
>>> There are quite a few important differences, the most notable one
>>> being the much greater difficulty involved in not buying the products
>>> of commercial agriculture.
>> No, that has no bearing on it, rupie. If you're going to do the right
>> thing, you just have to do it. You're not doing it. Your
>> "minimizing" is a cruel, evil joke.
>>
>
> So why are you not doing it? Because you stipulate that if a being
> happens not to be of the same species as us, then we have the right to
> exploit it as we please, with absolutely no limits, in order to
> satisfy any preferences we may have. How is that less of a "cruel,
> evil joke" than my stance?
>
>>>> You have no coherent way to draw the line that (you
>>>> say) puts the Pakistani slave children within the scope
>>>> of your moral concern, while the field animals chopped
>>>> to bits so you can eat remain outside the scope.
>>>> Unless...could it be...SPECIESISM? Yes, that must be it.
>>> Species is not a relevant consideration, no.
>> That is precisely what it is, liar.
>>
>
> No, if there were a similar level of difficulty involved in avoiding
> products whose production harmed humans with similar cognitive
> capacities, I would judge the issue in the same way.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> You sure are, you skinny feminine clueless urbanite
>>>> cocksucker.
>>> Well, I'm quite sure
>> So are we.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> I know that you don't _do_ anything, rupie, apart from
>>>> empty blabber. You are not an "activist" in any way.
>>> Yeah, yeah, I'm not an activist
>> That's what I just said.
>
> Yes, but do you actually believe it

Yes. You're a passivist.