On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?

Yes, that's fine.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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."

> > 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.

> > 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?
>
> It's not "machinery" in the literal sense. This is hilarious you know,
> your declaration of the "equal consideration principle" is about as
> vague as one can possibly be, with no examples from real life being
> given at all to clarify it, yet you proclaim it to be clear as a bell.

I have to confess that I too, find it pretty ironic that you are
declaring this notion of "capability" to be clear as a bell in such an
uncritical manner, when you were having such trouble with the notion
of "equal consideration".

I don't think that equal consideration is "as clear as a bell". I
acknowledged that some people might need a little time to understand
it properly, and I patiently applied myself to the task of trying to
convey my understanding of it to you, without patronizing you, putting
you down, or losing my patience, despite considerable rudeness from
you. I didn't content myself with saying "It's all self-evident,
you're just being stubborn". I assumed good faith on your part and did
my best to address your objections seriously. I didn't succeed in
convincing you that it was a useful, well-defined concept. Well, such
is life. Now you are in the same position. You think you clearly
understand this notion of capability, I am not at all convinced. The
bottom line is, either you're prepared to do what it takes to get me
to understand this concept in the same way as you supposedly do, or
you don't. If you think you've already done everything you reasonably
can and you don't want to bother anymore, that's fine. But if you do
want to keep trying, then you may as well get on with it, all the rest
is just hot air.

> This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition

Where's the definition? I didn't see one.

> with any number
> of clarifying examples, yet you reject it.
>

I just don't understand it, that's all. I don't find the attempt to
explain it sufficiently clear, and I suspect that Wetlesen would
acknowledge that by itself it's not sufficiently clear. Maybe we'll
find out whether I'm right about that, if he decides to join the
discussion. Now you think you understand it and that it's crystal
clear, and you might just conceivably be right, but I'm skeptical. I
suspect that what's happening is that you're not being critical
enough. I might be wrong. You're welcome to try to convince me
otherwise. But try to be polite. I think I was fairly polite when I
was trying to explain DeGrazia to you, despite fairly strong
provocation from you.

> > 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".

> > 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.

> >> 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?

> >> It is crystal clear.
>
> > If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
> > standards of clarity.
>
> Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking.
>

Well, so it seems to you. But is there not the tiniest seed of doubt
in your mind? I mean, if I can understand the theory of modular forms,
independence proofs in set theory by forcing, Galois cohomology,
Kripke's interpretation of the later works of Wittgenstein, Hellman's
modal structuralism, David Armstrong's work on truthmakers in
metaphysics, but somehow I can't understand this idea which is crystal-
clear to you... isn't that just the tiniest bit odd? I mean, it might
be. Maybe you're right and I'm just being really thick. But shouldn't
you be somewhat hesitant about drawing that conclusion? I mean, when I
was trying to explain DeGrazia to you and had no success, I stopped
and thought to myself "Well, maybe he has a point, maybe this notion
isn't as clear as I thought it was." I considered this possibility
seriously. Can you really not bring yourself to entertain the
slightest doubt that this notion really is crystal-clear to any person
of good sense? If so, then what's your explanation for why I can't
understand it? I mean, I really don't think you can plausibly claim
that I'm stupid. That's the kind of thing Ball would say, but it's
like saying I'm queer, it's not the kind of thing any sensible person
would take seriously. You may think that I've got an over-inflated
idea of my philosophical competence, that I'm arrogant, condescending,
ideologically driven, and so forth, but I really think you'll have to
acknowledge that there's some fairly strong evidence that I'm not a
stupid person. You may find it hard to believe, but I'm really doing
my best to make a good faith effort to consider what you say with an
open mind and be as fair as possible. Strange as it may seem, it
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?


>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Thanks for the permission to think what I want to think.
>

Any time. It would be nice if a few of the people round here were to
extend the same favour to me.

> 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.
>
> I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the
> professor lecturing the rest of us,

Well, you're wrong. I would really like to interact with you as an
equal fellow-thinker and have a respectful exchange of ideas. But you
really make it very difficult. You won't treat me with basic courtesy,
you won't assume good faith on my part, you won't engage with my
objections in a way which I can bring myself to regard as serious. I'm
sure you find it irritating when I express views which you see as
denigrating your intellectual competence, I find it irritating when
you do the same to me. But what can I do? If you keep on endlessly
asserting that you've got a knockdown argument and I'm just stalling
and being thick, then at some point I have to point out that I really
don't think you're engaging with my objections in a serious way. I'm
really got no desire to offend you, I'm really just trying to have a
serious discussion. Maybe there's no hope. Maybe we should just give
up.

> but get over yourself. If I had a
> professor like you I would attempt to switch classes.

I'm sure you would. I wouldn't be sticking around in your classes for
very long either, I can assure you.

Anyway, never mind all that. So this concept of capability is crystal
clear to any person of good sense and I'm just being stubborn and
thick. All right. Well, you said you like a challenge. If you like,
you can try and apply yourself to the task of conveying your
understanding of the concept to me. It would be nice if you could do
it without insulting me, I usually don't insult my students, and I can
assure you some of them are not very bright. So see how you go at
dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.

On Jul 29, 7:28 am, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:24 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.
>
> Only Goo is wise.
>
> Only Goo knows.
>

Yes, I've often thought how great it would be to know everything, like
him. Like the way he knows that all the male activists at Animal
Liberation, including me, are queer, and the way he knows that the
mathematical paper I'm working on is rubbish, and the way he knows
that I'm seething with rage at him as opposed to roaring with
laughter, and the way he knows that I'm the one who exhibits symptoms
of psychosis, and so much more. Imagine knowing so much. It must be
pretty special to be Jonathan Ball.

On Jul 29, 8:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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,
> >> Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?
>
> > This is your idea of serious discussion, is it?
>
> counterfactual. A conditional statement whose antecedent is known (or,
> at least, believed) to be contrary to fact.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
>

Counterfactual thought-experiments are quite often used in moral
philosophy. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't sometimes be
useful.

> >> 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.
> >> I don't want to talk about it,
>
> > Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time.
>
> YOU are the one who is supposed to be explaining it.
>

I've been trying, I've surely been trying.

> >> I want YOU to give an example that might
> >> occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
> >> can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
> >> coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.
>
> > I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can
> > only give you highly counterfactual examples.
>
> So the moral guidelines you are proposing we must follow don't relate to
> situations in the real world?

Yes, they do. But to determine how they apply in particular
circumstances you may need to consider highly counterfactual
situations.

> That seems misguided.

That doesn't seem like much of an argument. Maybe you could elaborate.
What's wrong with them?

> What's their purpose?
>

To guide behaviour.

> I've done that. Yes, I
>
> > would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be
> > too.
>
> How is that possible, I just made that scenario up out of my head.

We've talked this over before. I'll find the message for you later if
you like.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
>
> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> without having read a single word of it.

I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> 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
>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>
> Yawn.

Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.

On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
> >> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> > file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> > put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
>
> > So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> > without having read a single word of it.
>
> I know that you assume that which you are required to
> prove.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, yes. You know a lot, Ball. I just recently made a post elsewhere
in this thread on that subject. You know what flaws my talk has
without reading it, and you know what flaws my maths paper has despite
knowing nothing about maths. And you know that I'm queer, that I'm
destined to be a career telemarketer, and so forth. Each time you make
one of these pronouncements it's with absolute certainty. It's just
amazing, how much you know.

Anyway, you asked me to meet my burden of proof, and I've given you a
text to have a look at. If you write up a response, I'll post it on my
webpage and I'll make a good faith effort to consider your criticisms
in a fair and open-minded way, and I'll write a considered response to
them. And we can keep that going for as long as you like. Can't say
fairer than that, now can you?

On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>
> > Yawn.
>
> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> reason.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Defensive"? Don't see that. Seems to may I made a pretty succint and
rational commentary on the situation, worded as neutrally as possible.
I simply stated the facts about what your perspective is on the
situation and what my perspective is on the situation. And I wondered
whether it might be possible to discuss something more interesting.

I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
hypocrite. But apparently you take great joy in claiming that I am.
Fine. Well, if I thought you had a point, I would have some reason to
care about that, since I care about not being hypocritical. But, since
I think that your arguments on this matter are a joke, like pretty
much everything else you say, I don't really have any rational reason
to care all that much. All right, you have a low opinion of me, well,
I can live with that. I think that your opinion is a joke and that you
are a ridiculous clown. So I really haven't got any particular reason
to be defensive. And I wasn't being defensive, I stated the facts
about what we both think in a neutral way and asked if we could move
on to something more interesting.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
>>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
>>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
>>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
>>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
>>> without having read a single word of it.
>> I know that you assume that which you are required to
>> prove.
>
> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.

Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
know you can't.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>>> Yawn.
>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
>> reason.
>
> "Defensive"? Don't see that.

Of course you'd say that.


> I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
> hypocrite.

Because it thoroughly undercuts your claim that animals
have "rights". You don't really believe they do; nor
do you believe they are due equal moral consideration,
because you don't extend it to them yourself.

On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>
> > Yawn.
>
> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> reason.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

By the way, Ball, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
sufficient in food and electricity. I don't think that you've shown
that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
should, but nevertheless it is a live possibility for me that that is
what I should do. But I'm not convinced that it would be the best
thing to do, because it would mean foregoing opportunities to
alleviate suffering in other ways, by donating money to organizations
like Oxfam and UNICEF. This is a personal moral dilemma which I will
resolve by myself, and I couldn't care less what you think about the
decision I make, I have absolutely no respect for your judgement about
the matter.

You haven't shown that I've verbally commited myself to anything which
entails that what I'm doing is morally wrong. And your contention that
I am "amoral" is one of the most ludicrous things you've ever said,
and it's got some stiff competition. I have done a lot by way of
making significant sacrifices for the sake of my moral ideals, and it
is likely that I will do a lot more in the future. I have every reason
to be proud of what I have done by way of living up to my moral
ideals, you are a disgrace. The idea that I have some reason to be
"defensive" when talking to someone like you is one of the funniest
jokes you have ever made. You will, of course, deny this, but that is
irrelevant. Your judgement about the matter is worthless. Your
pronouncements on the matter are just as silly as calling me queer.

I really don't know what you imagine you achieve with all this
nonsense.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>>> Yawn.
>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
>> reason.
>
> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> sufficient in food and electricity.

No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
giving it up.


> I don't think that you've shown
> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> should, but

Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
humans, and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
bullshit. QED

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.

>> 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, or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
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.

>> 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.

>> 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..


>>> 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.

[..]

> 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.

[..]

>>> 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. 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.

>
>>> 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. He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience. 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.

>>>> 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.

[..]

> 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.

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.

The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
themselves is the topic for another lecture :>)

On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
> >>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> >>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> >>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
> >>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> >>> without having read a single word of it.
> >> I know that you assume that which you are required to
> >> prove.
>
> > Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
>
> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
> know you can't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You asked me for an argument. I gave you one. Instead of bothering to
read it, you confidently asserted that you know, without reading a
single word of it, that in it I assume what I am required to show,
that I haven't shown what I am required to show, and that I can't.
This is not the case. There's not much I can do if you're not going to
read it. You asked for the argument, the argument has been produced
and remains unreplied to. That means I've won. You apparently feel
content with this situation. Jolly good. Now, say some more funny
stuff.

On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>> Yawn.
> >> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >> reason.
>
> > By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> > sufficient in food and electricity.
>
> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> giving it up.
>

You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.

> > I don't think that you've shown
> > that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> > should, but
>
> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> humans,

No, it's not. I've discussed this elsewhere in the thread.

> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> bullshit.

Non sequitur.

> QED- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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. 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.

> >> 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.

> or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.

I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.

> 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? 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.


> >> 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?

>
>
>
>
> >> 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.

> >>> 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. 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.

> [..]
>
> > 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. 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. 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".

> [..]
>
> >>> 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.

> 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.

>
>
> >>> 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.

> 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.

> 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. 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?

> >>>> 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. Could you
perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information, and more
importantly *what* is it giving us information about?


> [..]
>
> > 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.

> 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...

> The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
> themselves is the topic for another lecture :>)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>>>> 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.


>>>> 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.

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.

>> [..]
>>
>>> 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.

>
>> 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, 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.



>>>>> 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.



>> 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.

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.

>>>>>> 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?

> Could you
> perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,

It just does. Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?

and more
> importantly *what* is it giving us information about?

About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.

>
>
>> [..]
>>
>>> 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, but that some exists already, and in most
cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...

>
>> 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.

>> The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
>> themselves is the topic for another lecture :>)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

On Jul 30, 2:39 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>> Yawn.
> >> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >> reason.
>
> > "Defensive"? Don't see that.
>
> Of course you'd say that.
>

Well, it's true.

> > I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
> > hypocrite.
>
> Because it thoroughly undercuts your claim that animals
> have "rights".

Nonsense. Whether or not I am a hypocrite has no bearing on any moral
issue.

> You don't really believe they do;

You've got no reason for thinking that. If I really don't believe they
do, then of course I'm not a hypocrite. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Your
job is to argue about whether they do or not, not about what I believe
or whether I'm a hypocrite.

> nor
> do you believe they are due equal moral consideration,
> because you don't extend it to them yourself.

I do.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

[..]
>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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.

"I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
all who was it hurting?"
Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo

"Deluding myself felt good."
Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3

And you wonder why I never take you seriously?

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
>>>>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
>>>>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
>>>>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
>>>>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
>>>>> without having read a single word of it.
>>>> I know that you assume that which you are required to
>>>> prove.
>>> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
>> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
>> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
>> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
>> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
>> know you can't.
>
> You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.

You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
can't seem to support.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
>>>> reason.
>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
>> giving it up.
>>
>
> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
>
>>> I don't think that you've shown
>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
>>> should, but
>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
>> humans,
>
> No, it's not.

Yes, it is.


>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
>> bullshit.
>
> Non sequitur.

No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
your own preaching, so the preaching is bullshit.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:45:55 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

>On Jul 29, 7:28 am, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
> wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 9:24 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.
>>
>> Only Goo is wise.
>>
>> Only Goo knows.
>>
>
>Yes, I've often thought how great it would be to know everything, like
>him. Like the way he knows that all the male activists at Animal
>Liberation, including me, are queer, and the way he knows that the
>mathematical paper I'm working on is rubbish, and the way he knows
>that I'm seething with rage at him as opposed to roaring with
>laughter,

Since the Goober makes up whatever he wants, and never
even tries to back up his absurd claims, he presents what he
considers to be an intelligent character when the reality is that
he's very clearly just a liar.

>and the way he knows that I'm the one who exhibits symptoms
>of psychosis, and so much more. Imagine knowing so much.

"Knowing"? "Much"? When considering dishonesty to the
extreme of the Goobal level, it always leads to the question:

How much of his absurdity is the Goober himself stupid enough
to believe?

Many of the claims he's not actually stupid enough to believe
must be deliberate lies, which probably account for over 50% of
Goo's "arguments". But supposedly he IS stupid enough to believe
some small percentage of the claims he makes, again causing a
person to wonder: Just how stupid Is this Goober? What percentage
of the following idiocy is Goob really stupid enough to believe?:

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move. . ." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans" - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

>It must be pretty special

In about the most contemptible way possible for
dealing with ngs, but that appears to be deliberate
on Goo's part.

>to be Jonathan Ball.

You might just as well call the Goober "Wilson Woods",
or "****tard", or any of the following:

Citizen
Benfez
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog

elvira
Dieter
"Dieter "
>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Apoo
Ted Bell

Jay Santos

Rudy Canoza
Trappist

Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:45:55 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 29, 7:28 am, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
>> > wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 9:24 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.
>>>
>>> Only Goo is wise.
>>>
>>> Only Goo knows.
>>>
>> Yes, I've often thought how great it would be to know everything, like
>> him. Like the way he knows that all the male activists at Animal
>> Liberation, including me, are queer, and the way he knows that the
>> mathematical paper I'm working on is rubbish, and the way he knows
>> that I'm seething with rage at him as opposed to roaring with
>> laughter,
>
> Since Rudy makes up whatever he wants

No. Rudy demonstrates repeatedly that you are a liar,
and that you believe in weird, irrational bullshit
about "pre-existent" animals:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001


You lost, ****wit. And you're too stupid to see it.

Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
> [..]
>> 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, it's established, then,

Your history is well established. I asked you how many times you
returned to this group masquerading as people who support your ideas.
Were you planning to reply to that question? You have a thorough
inventory of the history of this group, surely you must have that stat
at your fingertips? Just curious..

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>
>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>> all who was it hurting?"
>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>
>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>
>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>
>Your history is well established.

As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
from that statement you made at the top of this post
and others you've made over the years concerning your
deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>
>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>
>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>
>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>> Your history is well established.
>
> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
> how mentally ill you are

Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness. He
experienced cognitive dissonance, determined the
falseness of the belief that led him to experience it,
and abandoned the false belief.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>
>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>
>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>
>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>
>>> Your history is well established.
>>
>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>> how mentally ill you are,you try to excuse your bad
>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>
>Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.

He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.

On Jul 30, 2:50 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>> Derek wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
> >>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
> >>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
> >>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
> >>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
> >>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
> >>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>
> >>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
> >>>> all who was it hurting?"
> >>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>
> >>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
> >>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>
> >>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>
> >>> Your history is well established.
>
> >> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
> >> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
> >> how mentally ill you are,you try to excuse your bad
> >> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
> >> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
> >> from that statement you made at the top of this post
> >> and others you've made over the years concerning your
> >> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
> >> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
> >> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
> >> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
> >> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
> >> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>
> >Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>
> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.





Are you making a diagnosis?







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>
>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>
>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>> Your history is well established.
>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>> how mentally ill you are,you try to excuse your bad
>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>
> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if

Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.

He no longer experiences cognitive dissonance. He
resolved it by discarding the false belief(s).

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>
>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>
>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>
>Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.

He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
into account when discussing issues with him, because
rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
brain is going to punish him again.

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>
> He's a self-confessed delusional

WAS. He resolved the cognitive dissonance by
eliminating the delusion.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>
>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>
>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>
>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>> brain is going to punish him again.
>
>WAS.

IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.

>He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.

His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
he describes.

Derek snipped and ran thusly:

>> Your history is well established. I asked you how many times
you returned to this group masquerading as people who support
your ideas. Were you planning to reply to that question? You
have a thorough inventory of the history of this group, surely
you must have that stat at your fingertips? Just curious..
>
> As usual

As usual is right, you must find it pretty embarrassing to be shown to
be such a hypocrite.. Is it "Derek" this time? Are you currently working
on any new sock puppets to come along to agree with you? It must be
difficult to maintain such masquerades, or does it come naturally?

So many questions, so few answers... Maybe I'll go back into the
archives and ressurect a few of them. It'll be like pub night in Eastbourne.

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>> WAS.
>
> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.

No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
resolved the conflict, other than your personal animus
and your willful blindness.


>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>
> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
> the issues raised here for years,

His quotes and all of his posting history since about
2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>
>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>
>>> WAS.
>>
>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>
>No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
>resolved the conflict

His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>
>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
>> the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>> he describes.
>
>His quotes and all of his posting history since about
>2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".

False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate
on the proposition of animal rights.

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

But within just a few months he started writing
things like;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and later;

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

and, this very month

"I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes
should be granted basic rights."
Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h

And then back again,

"I'm not an ARA."
Dutch 19 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/253nlg

As we can plainly see, he's constantly changing his
stance on this position.

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>>>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>> WAS.
>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
>> resolved the conflict
>
> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only
relevant conflict. He no longer believes animals have
rights.


>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
>>> the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>> he describes.
>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about
>> 2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>
> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate
> on the proposition of animal rights.
>
> "I am an animal rights believer."
> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>
> and
>
> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
> the animal or species."
> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>
> But within just a few months he started writing
> things like;
>
> "They have no rights because the very idea of
> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."

That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among
others, set him straight.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>>>>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>
>>>>> WAS.
>>>>
>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>
>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
>>> resolved the conflict
>>
>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
>
>His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only
>relevant conflict. He no longer believes animals have
>rights.

His quotes which rest in Google archives show that
he still believes animals hold rights against us. There's
no use in trying to deny it.

>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>
>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
>>>> the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>> he describes.
>>>
>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about
>>> 2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>
>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate
>> on the proposition of animal rights.
>>
>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>
>> and
>>
>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>> the animal or species."
>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>
>> But within just a few months he started writing
>> things like;
>>
>> "They have no rights because the very idea of
>> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
>> Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

<restore evidence that shows Dutch's ever-changing
position on the proposition on animal rights>

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and later;

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

and, this very month

"I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes
should be granted basic rights."
Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h

And then back again,

"I'm not an ARA."
Dutch 19 Jul 2007 http://tinyurl.com/253nlg

As we can plainly see, he's constantly changing his
stance on this position.
<end restore>

When you snip away the evidence that supports my
claim and defeats yours, it reveals your dishonesty.

>That's a lot of time that went by.

And during that time he flip-flopped back and forth,
and then back again this very month.

>Mercer, among others, set him straight.

No, clearly he did not. Dutch is holding his buzzing ears
right now while his brain attacks him.

On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
> >>>>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> >>>>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> >>>>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
> >>>>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> >>>>> without having read a single word of it.
> >>>> I know that you assume that which you are required to
> >>>> prove.
> >>> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
> >> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
> >> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
> >> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
> >> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
> >> know you can't.
>
> > You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.
>
> You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
> can't seem to support.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay, this is your response to my talk? Can I publish it on my webpage?

On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>>>> Yawn.
> >>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >>>> reason.
> >>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> >>> sufficient in food and electricity.
> >> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> >> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> >> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> >> giving it up.
>
> > You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
> > anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
> > sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
> > likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
> > likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
> > reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
>
> >>> I don't think that you've shown
> >>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> >>> should, but
> >> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> >> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> >> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> >> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> >> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> >> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> >> humans,
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> >> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> >> bullshit.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
> your own preaching,

It does not.

> so the preaching is bullshit.

And this in any case would not follow.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who had
>>>>>> to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence to get
>>>>>> your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion, when you try
>>>>>> to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes you to such an
>>>>>> extent that it hurts you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel
>>>>>> dizzy, and gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after all who
>>>>>> was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I or
>>>> anyone should take you seriously after learning how mentally ill you
>>>> are,you try to excuse your bad
>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain hurt and
>>>> makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>
>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if
>
> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>
> He no longer experiences cognitive dissonance. He resolved it by
> discarding the false belief(s).

It's difficult to overstate what a spectacularly liberating experience
it was.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>> WAS.
>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
>>
>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
>
> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
> no longer believes animals have rights.
>
>
>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>> he describes.
>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>
>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
>> proposition of animal rights.
>> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
>> http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>> and
>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
>> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
>> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
>> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
>> http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
>> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
>> with rights is a laugh."
>
> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.

Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.