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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 08:02 AM 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 Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.


I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah


You contribute to animal death.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes.


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 08:05 AM 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 Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:


On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.


More proof that


The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.


Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis. Lots of people think it's not
self-evidently false. A huge majority of those who seriously consider
the matter, I would say. Surely you've got to say something more to
those people than just asserting that it is self-evidently false.

God, this habit of yours of changing the follow-up is tiresome.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 09:03 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.

No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.


I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
financially support processes which affected humans of similar
cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
circumstances.


Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 09:21 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch wrote:


In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
thinks is poorly defined


It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.


He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
non-operative due to disability.

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing. It is crystal clear. You're in a corner with no way out except
to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
the argument from marginal cases. You might disagree with the overall
approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. That argument always
sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
rigorous form.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 02:37 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 Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.


I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
financially support processes which affected humans of similar
cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
circumstances.


Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, but that's
the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
notion of "equal consideration" in that context.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 02:51 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 Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch wrote:
In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
thinks is poorly defined


It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.


He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
non-operative due to disability.


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. 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 might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet. As I said before, that's a scientific research programme,
not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be
there? How far is it allowed to be from being in working order? And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?

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.

It is crystal clear.


If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
standards of clarity.

You're in a corner with no way out except
to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
the argument from marginal cases.


Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were
bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in
a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No-
one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently
tried to explain how I understood the text to you.

You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you
have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of
"capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic
philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the
author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth
off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay
you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think
it's going to impress any other sensible person either.

You might disagree with the overall
approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases.


I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I
understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally
obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the
argument from marginal cases.

That argument always
sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
rigorous form.


Well, you can think that if you like. Suppose you were writing an
essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but
who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about
explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really
think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you
think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and
rigor which prevail in academic philosophy.

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 03:58 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.
I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah

You contribute to animal death.


Yes.


You violate your so-called beliefs. Yes.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 03:58 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that

The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.


Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.


I'm just following your lead.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:00 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 Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.
I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.


Yes.


You violate your so-called beliefs.


No.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:02 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 Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:


On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.


Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.


I'm just following your lead.


I see. Well, that talk of mine to which I directed you says quite a
lot in defence of my beliefs. I certainly do a lot more than just say
"it's self-evidently true". Why don't you read my talk and give me
your comments?



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:10 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.
I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.

You violate your so-called beliefs.


No.


Yes - daily.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:10 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.

I'm just following your lead.


I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:24 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 Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.


I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
talk?

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:25 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 Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.
Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.
I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.


No.


Yes - daily.


No, I don't, Ball. My actions are in accordance with my beliefs as I
have stated them.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:27 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 Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.


I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence and you pretend
to fall asleep. So, were you not really being serious in issuing the
challenge? I don't think you've actually read the talk, have you?



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 01:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017