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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

We most certainly are, you cocksucker.


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

Then you deny it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blah blah blah...

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

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

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

That's what open to interpretation means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> What do you want to know?

I hope you answered in the last post.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Derek showed that you do.

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

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

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

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

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

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