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'.

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, 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.

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.

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, 3:13 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.

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'.

"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, 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:
> 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. 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.

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. It is
brutally obvious that "mere" is attached to your
downplaying, minimizing use of "financial": "merely
financial", AS OPPOSED TO active, repeated
participation. 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. You
know, or should know, that at the very moment you hand
over the money, you are buying animal death. 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.


>>>>>>> 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.

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.


>>>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>> 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.

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 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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 in message
ups.com...
> 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.

As much as humanly possible, by mandating all redesigned facilities to
limiting the number of animals per hour that can processed, by making humane
awareness a mandatory course, by instituting training at all levels and
decent working wages for all animal workers. By strict enforcement of strong
welfare legislation. By tax incentives to pursue free range organic, mixed
and other alternative farming methods to take the focus away from the
industrialized model.

>> >> >> > 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"?

No, that wouldn't do anything. What is reasonable to a farmer might be to
make as much profit as possible and think about animal welfare sometime in
the future. The path has to clear and well-defined, fair but enforced.

> You've done no more by way of giving clear guidance as to what counts
> as acceptable farming than I have.

If thats the case I hope I have corrected it.

> Your notions of "moral person" and "capability" are quite vague too.
> You think that understanding them is just a matter of common sense.

I said more than that, and so did the essay.

> 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.

I defined capability and so did the essay. It is the inherent ability an
organism has, not manifest, but potential, like speech in a new-born.

>> >> >> > 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.

Yes I do, I quantify them extensively, I don't know how you can have missed
that.

>> >> >> > 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.

I'm sure you are frustrated, but I can't help you there. You will
communicate with me when you start making clear statements.


>> >> 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.

Any time you want to go do other things feel free. I am an eternal optimist
so as long as you hang around I'll probably keep giving you feedback in the
hopes that there will be a breakthrough.


>> >> > 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.

You are misconstruing my objections to your approach. I am not complaining
about your "behaviour" in the usual sense, I am primarily complaining that
you're not saying anything of any substance. It is completely irrelevant to
me if you call me a prat or whatever. The whole issue of condescension for
me is just side effect of your repeated failure to make a point or take a
stand. If you did those things your "tone" would probably not be noticeable.