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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:55 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 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.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:56 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 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.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 08:15 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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"?

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, 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.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 08:40 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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? Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. 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.

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.

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.
This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number
of clarifying examples, yet you reject it.

How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?


That 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.


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.

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.


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.

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

  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 10:28 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.








- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 10:29 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 1:40 pm, 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? Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. 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.

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.

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.
This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number
of clarifying examples, yet you reject it.

How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?


That 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.

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.

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.







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.

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





Ahhhhh............so good to hear once again from Goo's little bum-boy
Baby Goo.







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 10:50 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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 -

- Show 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.

Are you familiar with the concept that when you make a request of
someone you exercise basic courtesy?

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 10:56 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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.

Okay, so you believe - let's assume - that in the course of my
discussions on this newsgroup I've verbally committed myself to
propositions which entail that what I am doing is morally wrong. I
find your attempts to argue that point absolutely pitiful, but you're
convinced that you've demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt. So
you think you've demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite, and I think that
this, like pretty much everything you say, is a joke. Okay. Well,
we've certainly got that much established.

Do you have any desire to move forward from there? Or will you be
content to endlessly repeat the unargued assertion - which I think is
a joke and will be recognized by such by any reasonable person - that
you've shown that I'm a hypocrite, for all eternity? Supposing I were
a hypocrite, what of it, why would you or anyone else except me care?
Do you have no desire to discuss more interesting topics?

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 10:59 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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?

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.

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. I've done that. Yes, I
would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be
too.

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 11:26 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?


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 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? That seems misguided. What's their purpose?

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.



  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 11:41 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 11:45 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 11:49 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 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.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 04:52 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 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.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 04:53 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017