Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:47 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]

It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
has looked at the page.


Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.

The Ultimate Flame
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
and obnoxious. ...
www.ultimateflame.com/

As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?




  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:57 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Rupert wrote:


And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?


I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."


If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.




  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 11:13 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch wrote:
[..]
What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
Yes, that's fine.
It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.
Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
the ability.
Right
So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
everyday observation.
I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
they had innate capabilities.
Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
different tests.

And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
A. Both are true.


If you're going to have more than one test, you need to say something
about what happens when they give different answers.


It won't happen, there is only one result.


Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
laryngitis?
That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example,
I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
that infants have the capability of speech.
You're talking about "ability", not capability.
There's no distinction in ordinary usage.

But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
on, long ago.


If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.


It's been done to death, you're stalling.


Wetlesen says "Infants have

the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
English speakers as well.

I'm incredulous that a person of your intelligence would find this
obscure. It means that whatever the mechanisms that permit a human being
to talk they are not yet fully formed in an infant.


Yes, that's fine, so in what sense is the "capability" already there?


There are neurological structures capable of developing into the ability
for speech, or something along those lines. Why does it matter what the
mechanics of it are?

The same goes for
it's ability to walk. Yet they do have the capability to develop these
skills, given time and the right environment.


What does that *mean*?


What do you *mean*, "what does that *mean*"? The words are self-explanatory.


No reasonably intelligent
person would find this obscure I'm quite sure.


Well, I'm a counterexample, a friend of mine who has recently
submitted a Ph.D. in mathematics, Peter Singer is a counterexample.
Unless you're seriously going to maintain that none of us are
"reasonably intelligent people".


I was referring to people who are not attempting to ward off rebuttal of
a pet theory, someone objective of average intelligence. Singer may be
bright as hell, but he is not objective.


I submit that you are
having trouble with this because you believe that there may be an
unpleasant a consequence to "getting it" and you are not prepared to
accept that consequence.


How about I see what my parents think about it? Would that be a fair
test?


I don't know your parents, would I consider them objective?

or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.
Of course, but it's an example of how a person could have the ability to
speak damaged. They could and many do subsequently learn all over again.
So the ability is termporarily lost. But apparently the capability
stays there permanently. What's the basis for saying that? What
actually happens is that neural pathways are damaged and then
gradually re-formed. What's the basis for saying the capability was
never lost?

The verification is in the reforming of neural pathways, the return of
the ability.


Wetlesen explicitly denies that "capability" is the same as "potential
ability". Remind me of your take on that again?


You misread a sentence and got a wrong impression. The wording is a
little awkward in one place, and you latched onto it. The context of the
essay clearly shows that he does use capability to mean potential
(non-operative) ability, that *is* what he uses the term to mean.


In what sense is it always there?

Apparently the capacity to form neural pathways to enable abilities to
manifest remained. Perhaps the very same mechanism that the person's
brain used as an infant. A neuroscientist would likely have a more
technical explanation, but that hardly matters, there obviously *is* an
explanation.

The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
same principle as the flightless bird above.
It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
why not?
No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.
So it looks like we now have three different tests.
(1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
contexts?
(2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
circumstances?
(3) Do conspecifics have the ability?
Those are very different tests.

That's all good right? The more the merrier, unless one test comes out
different than the others, and I don't think that is the case.


I think the different tests do give different answers, hence the
problem.


They don't.

In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.
It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
abilities in question.
But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
You need to substantiate this claim.

The tests you listed above pretty much do that as far as I can see,
along with the complete absence of these abilities in non-humans.

Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
experience observing members of their species that they have the
capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.
Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
radically brain-damaged human, then?
We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
you look at from that angle.
I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
the benefit of the doubt

Because of the considerations under tests #2 and #3.


I think it's only test #3.

(why is there any doubt at all, using the
test you gave just above?)

We can't verify test #1 without a neurological examination, at CT scan
perhaps, even that would probably be inconclusive. Some humans with
massive catastrophic brain damage have fully recovered functionality.


Well, can you elaborate on this point? Can you give me some examples?

As I see it, the point of the AMC is that there are cases where there
is no hope,


Describe such a person.

and we still don't doubt that these humans have a high
moral status.


Meaning what exactly? We don't execute them?

but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.

I meant it is absurd to attempt to conclude anything about dogs at all
by considering brain-damaged humans.

You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
why species is such a big deal.

As long as humans continue to develop these abilities and no non-humans
do, people will, being bears for efficiency, use species as a simple way
to determine if these capabilities likely exist in a particular
indivdual.


But there are some humans where the capabilities are clearly absent,
on any reasonable interpretation of the word, yet we still don't doubt
that they have high moral status. I know you're going to say I'm just
repeating the AMC over and over again, but I don't see that it's been
answered.


Maybe you could elaborate on "high moral status".

As soon as other species start exhibiting these abilities
that strategy will have to be abandoned.

None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.
I guess you're
somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
the ability in normal contexts is all there.
You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
try a bit harder."
That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
subject with me..
Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
think there are some serious problems here.
Yea, oh well, let's soldier on.
You might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet.
Every example I have given does it.
You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.
Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
of the mechanics of the ability.
Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability.
No he doesn't. You're forgetting that you misread that sentence. He
makes in quite clear that capability *is* latent, undeveloped ability.
If you can't agree to this I could ask him to clarify it, but I am
positive about it.
Well, I'll have another look. If capability is latent ability then we
need to be told the reason for suspecting that a radically cognitively
impaired human has any latent ability, any more than a dog.

This is trivial,


It's not, it's the crux of the matter.


I meant the explanation is trivial, as right below.

history offers us NO examples of dogs developing these
abilities, while humans, impaired or otherwise do exhibit them. The
*only* room for reasonable doubt is with humans. With the vast majority
of all humans, there's no doubt at all that these abilities *do* exist
to some degree.

So
do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
It's a bit more complicated.
I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
that can develop under the right circumstances.
But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
humans have such a thing.

Of course it's plausible that there are some number of human beings so
radically impaired that virtually all semblance of "humanity", if you
will, is absent. What would you expect people do with them? Kill them?


The point is that we don't doubt it would be wrong to treat them the
way we typically treat nonhuman animals.


They aren't treated any better than beloved pets.

Why would you expect that? People don't kill their dogs for being dumb.
People don't kill any animal for being dumb.

[..]
Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
discussed.
Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.
Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
whole section it is quite clear what he means.
You're saying a capability is a
special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
without the corresponding ability being present.
The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
I mean, this may seem
like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
"ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
as in the case of "capability".
Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
the ability you have now.
[..]
How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
That doesn't matter.
It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
required of it.
These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
that it may exist.
But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
becomes relevant.
There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
case of nonhumans.

Let's disconnect the two cases to clarify things.

With respect to non-humans first, there is *no doubt*, period. Not one
has ever exhibited these particular abilities so we have zero reason to
believe they have them. That's that, end of story.

Due to the similarities between great apes and humans it might make
sense to protect them with some higher moral status, but even they have
not actually demonstrated the kind of higher brain functions we're
talking about.


If the achievements of great apes are not good enough for full moral
status, then to be consistent we would have to say that humans who are
permanently at their mental level - and there are plenty of those -
are not entitled to full moral status either. And no-one would find
that acceptable.


In my opinion we shouldn't kill great apes or marginal humans.


With respect to impaired humans, every one is different, every diagnosis
is different.


But we would never think it permissible to treat *any* human, no
matter how impaired, in the way we currently treat many billions of
nonhuman animals. That's the point.


That's because we have come to the decision as a human community, that
it would be socially counterproductive to kill such people, it would
undermine human society. It's more conducive to social stability and
harmony to treat such people as we treat beloved pets, not as we treat
field mice, lizards, frogs or chickens, all of whom we kill constantly
and in great numbers during commercial agriculture. The resultant of
that decision is that we have internalized that it is *wrong* to kill
those folks. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with livestock
or barn rats.


All we know for sure is that humans as a rule do have
these capabilities. Maybe this person has some rich inner experience
going on, it's possible. That's the doubt.

It's the capability itself on which we are placing
the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
abilities would ever manifest.
But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
possibility.
I would say not zero,
I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.

Even if that were the case, it doesn't actually present the problem that
you propose with this argument. We don't assign moral status to marginal
humans based on their cognitive abilities, we do so for a long list of
other reasons, not the least of which are simply compassionate grounds.


Compassionate grounds should apply equally to nonhumans.


Why? How? Which non-humans? Based on what reasoning precisely?

If animals are to ever earn elevated moral status by default, they will
not get it by breaking down the back door, they will need to earn it by
acquiring higher cognitive capabilities.

You may wish to argue that all animals and non-humans should have the
same moral status regardless, but that's a different argument, and just
as hard a sell as this one.


We don't doubt that any human, no matter how impaired, has a
significant amount of moral status. Hence there are no grounds for
denying the same to nonhumans. I know I'm just repeating the AMC over
and over again, but I don't see that it's been answered.


I don't think I can convince you, and only 10% because my arguments are
not good enough.

almost all cases involve some level of
diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
treat animals incorrectly.
I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.

There are groups of people who believe in just about anything you can
think of, beliefs are funny that way. Once you decide to commit to
believing something and invest some of yourself in that belief it's not
easy to stop. It's a very good reason to cultivate skepticism.


Which I do. I hope you do as well.


I don't see that you're skeptical in the least when it comes to
arguments that reinforce your powerful belief that animals deserve equal
consideration.


Mathematics doesn't tend to be like this.



And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?
The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.
Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.
I thought it was capability.
For sentience. Page 2. "In the following I shall argue for a biocentric
answer to the main question. This is an individualistic version of a
nonanthropocentric position. It ascribes moral status to all individual
living organisms; humans, other animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
This position is congenial to Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life'.
To me it has a strong appeal with both philosophical and religious
overtones. On the other hand, I do not accept Schweitzer's assumption
that all living organisms should be ascribed an equal moral status
value. Such a strong assumption seems to be counter-intuitive, and
besides, unnecessary. Instead, I shall argue for a grading of moral
status value, as well as of the strength of our corresponding duties to
moral subjects. There will be one exception from this grading, however,
pertaining to human beings. They are ascribed the highest moral status
value, not because they are humans but because they are moral agents or
moral persons. This will be a universalistic and egalitarian view of
human dignity and basic human rights. Other living beings are ascribed
degrees of moral status value depending on their degree of relevant
similarity to moral persons. Presumably, animals with self-consciousness
or consciousness and sentience have a higher moral status value than
nonconscious and nonsentient organisms. Even so, however, the organisms
with a lesser moral status value are not devoid of moral status, and for
this reason we do have a prima facie duty not to cause avoidable harm to
them. Or if we cannot avoid harming them in order to survive ourselves,
then we have at least a subsidiary duty to cause the least harm."
He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience.
Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.
None of the reasons we extend consideration to marginal humans apply to
non-humans.
How about their capacity to suffer?

I assumed that the marginal humans could not even suffer. If that is the
case then I reject your argument even more vehemently.


Sorry, I'm confused here. What's your stance on humans who lack the
capacity for consciousness?


It depends entirely on the case.


I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
distinction.

I don't argue that we should ignore the suffering of animals, but
suffering in itself is not an advanced cognitive ability, although I
would say that those abilities probably tend to intensify suffering.

It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.
For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.
Not according to the quote I found.
Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
interpretation if you like.
What would it
take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?
That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.

No it doesn't, the AMC contains assumptions that cannot be verified. For
one thing, radically impaired humans are treated as a special disability
case, they are not judged in the same way as fully functioning animals
are judged, and you cannot simply presuppose that they should be before
making your argument.


The assumption is that we judge both impaired humans and nonhumans on
the basis of their individual characteristics. What's wrong with that?


It's not very informative, it sounds more like a slogan than an assumption.


If you are going to second guess how we view
radically impaired humans vs how we view animals then you must begin by
accepting the actual reasons we view radically impaired humans as we do.
You don't do that, you presume to claim that our treatment of them vis
vis moral status is tied to their cognitive abilities, and that is
clearly not the case.


What is it based on? That's the challenge, to explain that.


It's founded in a social/moral/legal decision that such people shall
retain basic rights, i.e. we don't bump them off, despite their misfortune.

Once this link is broken you cannot reconnect it.
Radically impaired humans are given a certain moral status for a list of
reasons which you must accept as reality.


Doing it on the ground of "capability" is not satisfactory because
that notion has not been adequately explained.


The notion is transparent, your inability to grasp it has nothing to do
with the quality of the explanations. I have the capability to do
advanced calculus, but not the ability, because I require more training.

The other grounds you
have given would not be sufficient for our strong conviction that they
have an absolutely unconditional entitlement to high moral status.


Ipse dixit, those are very strong grounds, particularly the social one.

In short, along with being a
backwards argument, and an argument based on creating a rule from an ad
hoc exception, it is circular.



Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing.
Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
capability consists in.
The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.
That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
criteria? How do we go about determining it?
Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.
That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.
Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
cases you mean?
Which has not yet been rebutted.

Done, to death.

Could you
perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,
It just does.
Not very informative.

Yes, actually it tells us A LOT.

Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
I assume biologists could help you out there.

As they could you.

and more
importantly *what* is it giving us information about?
About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
some explication of what this meant.

Ask a neurobiologist if you think it will make a difference.


It's the job of the would-be rebutter of the AMC to tell us how the
current state of neurobiology can be used to undermine the AMC.


And assuming that a neurobiologist was here to give a long talk on the
mechanisms in human infant brains which give them the capability to
develop speech, moral agency, etc as they mature, and why non-human
animal's young do not have such capabilities, how would this help
understand this point any better? The fact remains, human infants DO
have the capabilities and non-human young do not, history has told us
that. History is our laboratory.



[..]
really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?
Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
stop you from threatening the existing belief.
So see how you go at
dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.
Maybe if I lay it out in point form
1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.
2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
otherwise the abilities would not exist.
If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
abilities" means.
There is the slightest reason, they are human, therefore the possibility
exists, not only of advancing,
No, in many cases that doesn't exist.

You can't say that. It is sufficent if someone important *believes*
there is hope.


So, if someone important were to entertain the idea that maybe one day
a dog will acquire the abilities, that would be sufficient for giving
the dog full moral status?


If it's your family dog, it's enough that you love it, you don't need to
believe that it will ever talk.

I suppose the question is who is
"important" here. Which "important" person actually believes that
there is some hope with every human with a brain, no matter how
impaired? You? Are you "important"?


If the impaired person is my family member, and it is my decision
whether or not to keep them on life support or not, then in that case
*I* am the important person, and if I have hope that they will recover
human abilities then there *is* hope, warranted or not, and the person
may be kept alive because of it. Such was the case in the link I posted
earlier.


but that some exists already,
I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
they'll never develop the abilities.

"The" abilities?


The ones you were talking about. Linguistic competence, reason, and
moral agency. I thought you said those were crucial.


We don't require a person be fully competent before allowing them to live.

Which ones, to what degree? Every case is unique and
difficult to categorize clearly.

and in most
cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
I'm not impressed with the other reasons.

It doesn't matter if you're impressed with the other reasons, it doesn't
matter if some of the reasons are completely irrational, the fact is,
they ARE real reasons,


You're being inconsistent. If they're completely irrational, they're
not real reasons.


Sure they are. If I insist on keeping my brain dead brother alive that
is a reality. If I do so for religious reasons that is also a reality.
It explains why things are as they are, and dilutes the assumption that
we do these things based on linguistic competence, reason, and moral
agency. Without that assumption, the AMC is dead before it starts.

You can't say, "You must give that dog the same moral status as that man
who has the intelligence of a dog" if that man's status isn't based on
his intelligence (which clearly it is NOT)

Basically, the AMC is a strawman.


and they explain why exceptional status is
accorded such individuals. That effectively breaks the link to the
cognitive capability argument.



3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.
4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
develop these abilities.
And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...
We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.
You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
the AMC.

I rebutted the AMC right above. Once there exists a list of actual
*other* reasons why as humans we extend moral status to marginal cases,
and such a list exists,


I don't accept that any *good* reason has been given which would not
apply equally to nonhumans.


It doesn't have to be a good reason. If religion were the only reason,
or familial attachments, or laws, or social convention, whether you
approve of those reasons or not, they exist and they destroy the
assumption that linguistic competence, reason, and moral agency play a
role in deciding to extend moral status to those persons. Once that
assumption is gone there is no reason to extend consideration to
non-humans with similar abilities in linguistic competence, reason, and
moral agency. The AMC relies on the false assumption that linguistic
competence, reason, and moral agency are directly related to the
decision to extend moral status to impaired humans. A more accurate
description of what is happening is that a decision was made at a
societal level for social reasons to NOT revoke the basic moral status
of marginals, even though linguistic competence, reason, and moral
agency abilities are dminished. Non-human animals have never earned that
status in the first place.


[..]
  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 11:40 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]

It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
has looked at the page.


Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.

The Ultimate Flame
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
and obnoxious. ...
www.ultimateflame.com/

As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?




So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..
  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 11:45 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Rupert wrote:


And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?

I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."


If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.


De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
for vegetarians and wish them only good will. I particularly would love
them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
feels like to have their feet on the ground.


  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:02 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]

It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
has looked at the page.


Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.

The Ultimate Flame
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
and obnoxious. ...
www.ultimateflame.com/

As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?




So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..


Yes, you are.




  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:13 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Rupert wrote:


And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."


If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.


De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
for vegetarians and wish them only good will.


"I am primarily arguing with the self-serving, irrational
windbag-like mental midgets who call themselves "ethical
vegetarians" most of whom are suffering from a form of
eating disorder." Dutch 01 August 2007

I particularly would love
them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
feels like to have their feet on the ground.


"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm


  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:45 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]
Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.
I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.
What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.
You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
a break.
I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?


He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
of what he did here.


If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
it's fair game.


If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
a tension in your argument here.


It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
personal information on my private website. What you say in this
discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
same consideration.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
threats of illegal activity.

So, am I to take it you agree with me that Derek's behaviour towards
Karen was contemptible?

  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:48 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:24 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:42:52 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:56 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in messagenews[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:16 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert wrote:


[..]


Why?


Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.


Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?


A moral one. Keep your arguments with him on Usenet, not on a web
page which includes photographs and details of his whereabouts. You
want to go down Lesley's spiteful little road?


Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.


[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful


I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.


Ball has continually,
spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.


I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
spiteful,
[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful


And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way


Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
is spiteful,


No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.


No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
given definition of the term, "spiteful".


[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
revenge.]


[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]


due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.


No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.


The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.


No, the definitions apply and are given here,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful


[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
revenge.]


[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]


Neither Rupert
or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?


I'm not.


Your calling Pearl's webpage "spiteful" in the context of your
behaviour towards Karen is really absurd beyond all belief.


I don't call her web page "spiteful" in that context. I see it as
"spiteful" in the context I gave;

[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
revenge.]

[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

I see your web page in the same way: spiteful.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Fine, see it how you like. That's what will happen to Ball any time he
tries to give me orders.

If some miracle happens and he starts acting like a reasonable human
being, then of course I'll extend him the same consideration that I
would to any other human being.

  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:49 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert wrote:


Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.


You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
with him they can go through Google archives and find them
in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.


Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
to expect the same privilege?


Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
course of action against threats like her.


I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
after being kicked out of her parish.


Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
church officials is true and backed by evidence from
her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).


"Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
partners and as companions. A child-hating
pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
where they come in contact with children, and are
excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z


She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
paedophiles" access to children, including her own
son..


"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej


She believes society should stop making a big deal
out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
"responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
can then practice oral sex on them.


"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
And sometimes that love is provided by caring
and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o


She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
church communities where they can come into
contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
them.


"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx


"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8


Those comments are of real concern to me and
her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
from one parish only to then flee to another
which specialises in child care. Compounding my
concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
identity by openly lying like a common predator.


Karen's no threat to children.


Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
over young children, because if you don't think she's a
potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You're a fool, Derek.



  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:50 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 8:13 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch wrote:
[..]
What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
Yes, that's fine.
It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.
Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
the ability.
Right
So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
everyday observation.
I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
they had innate capabilities.
Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
different tests.
And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
A. Both are true.


If you're going to have more than one test, you need to say something
about what happens when they give different answers.


It won't happen, there is only one result.


The tests you've provided give different answers.

Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
laryngitis?
That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example,
I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
that infants have the capability of speech.
You're talking about "ability", not capability.
There's no distinction in ordinary usage.
But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
on, long ago.


If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.


It's been done to death, you're stalling.


You really are a tiresome prat.


  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 01:08 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
Dutch" wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
Rupert wrote:


And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."


If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.


De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
for vegetarians and wish them only good will.


Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave out
all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?

I particularly would love
them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
feels like to have their feet on the ground.


It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.

  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 02:30 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert wrote:


Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.


You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
with him they can go through Google archives and find them
in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.


Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
to expect the same privilege?


Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
course of action against threats like her.


I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
after being kicked out of her parish.


Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
church officials is true and backed by evidence from
her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).


"Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
partners and as companions. A child-hating
pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
where they come in contact with children, and are
excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z


She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
paedophiles" access to children, including her own
son..


"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej


She believes society should stop making a big deal
out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
"responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
can then practice oral sex on them.


"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
And sometimes that love is provided by caring
and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o


She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
church communities where they can come into
contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
them.


"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx


"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8


Those comments are of real concern to me and
her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
from one parish only to then flee to another
which specialises in child care. Compounding my
concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
identity by openly lying like a common predator.


Karen's no threat to children.


Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
over young children, because if you don't think she's a
potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Okay. So she said she had met some "responsible paedophiles". What's a
paedophile? Let's say a paedophile is an adult who is aware of
regularly having sexual feelings for pre-pubescent children. These
people were aware of having such feelings. She said she thought they
were "responsible". What does that mean? I believe it means she knew
them quite well and had formed the judgement that they were decent
people, that she was satisfied that they wouldn't do anything to harm
others. I think quite possibly it means she was satisfied that they
wouldn't break the law. And she made the judgement that they could be
trusted around children, including her son.

So, apparently, no-one who is aware of having sexual feelings towards
pre-pubescent children can under any circumstances be trusted around
children. I daresay quite a lot of people in our culture would agree
with that statement. Karen, who knew that these people were aware of
having sexual feeilngs towards pre-pubescent children, nevertheless
had formed the judgement on the basis of her knowledge of them that
they could be trusted around children. Apparently that makes her a
threat to children. And I am prepared to entertain the idea that this
judgement of hers might be correct, or at least that she is not
necessarily a threat to children herself just because she made this
judgement. Apparently that makes me too a threat to children, because
I am prepared to entertain this idea. I am not sure how many people in
our culture would go that far.

Okay, so all of this might be the case. Maybe no-one who is aware of
sexual feelings towards pre-pubscent children can be trusted around
children, and maybe Karen and I cannot be trusted around children
either. This might be the case. But do you really *know* it to be the
case? Have you subjected this belief of yours to rigorous scrutiny?
For example, have you yourself ever met anyone who admits to having
sexual feelings for children? The received wisdom of your culture
might be correct, but if you have not yourself confirmed that it is
correct you should acknowledge that fact.

I think of myself as someone who cares a lot about children. I get on
well with the children in my family, I volunteer quite a lot of time
and money to a children's rights organization called UNICEF. I am
strongly motivated to help children and protect them from harm, just
as much as you I am sure. I hope to have kids myself some day. And,
I'm sorry to tell you this because I know you'll worry about it, I do
work with children. Usually children who are on the verge of
adulthood, but sometimes younger. I get a lot of satisfaction out of
helping children with their studies. I find working with children who
are near the end of high-school to be the most intellectually engaging
work. I'm about to take up a teaching post in Shanghai working with
people who have just finished high-school. I guess probably most of
them will be over 18.

I'm sorry to hear you think I'm not fit to work with children. I
really do think it's a bit silly. I think you should examine this
belief a bit more carefully.

  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:40 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]

It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
has looked at the page.
Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.

The Ultimate Flame
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
and obnoxious. ...
www.ultimateflame.com/

As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?



So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..


Yes, you are.


Don't be spiteful and unoriginal.
  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 09:42 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Rupert wrote:
And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.

De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
for vegetarians and wish them only good will.


"I am primarily arguing with the self-serving, irrational
windbag-like mental midgets who call themselves "ethical
vegetarians" most of whom are suffering from a form of
eating disorder." Dutch 01 August 2007

I particularly would love
them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
feels like to have their feet on the ground.


"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
...'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm


According to that logic you are a bully.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 07:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 05:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 09:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017