On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:42:52 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Aug 1, 9:56 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:2lp0b3llnbv78bugh18h2181o8eim548b8@4ax .com...
>> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:fin0b31v051kdnu7fllsuooe1qrti4f2e3@4ax .com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews1h0b3dib6tvk0ujf8vd8ve5ul2po1v0rd@4ax .com...
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:16 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Why?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?
>>
>> >> >> >> A moral one. Keep your arguments with him on Usenet, not on a web
>> >> >> >> page which includes photographs and details of his whereabouts. You
>> >> >> >> want to go down Lesley's spiteful little road?
>>
>> >> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
>> >> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>>
>> >> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
>> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>>
>> >> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
>>
>> >> >> >Ball has continually,
>> >> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
>> >> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
>> >> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>>
>> >> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
>> >> >> spiteful,
>> >> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> >> >> return for one received.]
>> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>>
>> >> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
>>
>> >> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
>> >> is spiteful,
>>
>> >No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.
>>
>> No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
>> given definition of the term, "spiteful".
>>
>> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
>> >> revenge.]
>>
>> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> >> return for one received.]
>>
>> >> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
>>
>> >> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
>> >> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
>> >> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
>> >> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
>> >> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.
>>
>> >The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.
>>
>> No, the definitions apply and are given here,
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>>
>> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
>> revenge.]
>>
>> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> return for one received.]
>>
>> >Neither Rupert
>> >or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
>> >you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?
>>
>> I'm not.
>
>Your calling Pearl's webpage "spiteful" in the context of your
>behaviour towards Karen is really absurd beyond all belief.

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

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

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

I see your web page in the same way: spiteful.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
>> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
>> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
>> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>> >>
>> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
>> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
>> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
>> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
>> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
>> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
>> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>> >
>> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
>> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
>> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
>> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
>> >to expect the same privilege?
>>
>> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
>> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
>> course of action against threats like her.
>>
>> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
>> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
>> after being kicked out of her parish.
>>
>> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
>> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
>> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
>> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
>> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
>> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>>
>> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
>> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
>> partners and as companions. A child-hating
>> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
>> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
>> where they come in contact with children, and are
>> excellent in those fields because they understand
>> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
>> one-to-one basis."
>> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>>
>> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
>> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
>> son..
>>
>> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
>> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
>> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>>
>> She believes society should stop making a big deal
>> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
>> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
>> can then practice oral sex on them.
>>
>> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
>> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
>> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
>> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
>> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
>> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
>> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>>
>> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
>> church communities where they can come into
>> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
>> them.
>>
>> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
>> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
>> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>>
>> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
>> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
>> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
>> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
>> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
>> ON THAT?!"
>> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
>> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>>
>> Those comments are of real concern to me and
>> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
>> from one parish only to then flee to another
>> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
>> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
>> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
>Karen's no threat to children.

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

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>>>> You swine turd.
>>>> You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth.
>>>> You are a canker, a pus leaking sore, a weeping open wound.
>>>> You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
>>>> worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
>>>> a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
>>>> stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>>>> You are a curdled, staggering, buck-toothed, bow-legged, mutant dwarf
>>>> smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged
>>>> birth into a hostile world made even more hostile by your presence.
>>>> You are insensate, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the stupified,
>>>> puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then died of shame
>>>> in recognition of what they had done. They were a bit late.
>>>> I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
>>>> species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
>>>> at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
>>>> Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing.
>>>> You are scum, the dregs of this earth.
>>>> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
>>>> drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
>>>> you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
>>>> frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
>>>> queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
>>>> You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
>>>> nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
>>>> ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even whores won't have
>>>> sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention,
>>>> and lost in a land that reality forgot.
>>>> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
>>>> obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
>>>> emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
>>>> loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meat slapper.
>>>> Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get
>>>> your dog to play with you. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You
>>>> would watch p*rn' all day if the other inmates would let you.
>>>> On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of puke. You are
>>>> deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
>>>> wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
>>>> You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
>>>> sorrow wherever you go.
>>>> You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
>>>> clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
>>>> still would not have a clue.
>>>> Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
>>>> to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
>>>> nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
>>>> to access it ever so much more rapidly.
>>>> And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
>>>> statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
>>>> What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
>>>> tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
>>>> desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the
>>>> snake?
>>>> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
>>>> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
>>>> way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
>>>> of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
>>>> collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
>>>> Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
>>>> stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit
>>>> more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
>>>> Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
>>>> universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
>>>> fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
>>>> of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
>>>> laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
>>>> epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
>>>> again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your
>>>> ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
>>>> trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
>>>> The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I
>>>> have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well...
>>>> it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
>>>> creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a
>>>> bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
>>>> Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and
>>>> count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
>>>> skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted and that
>>>> everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
>>>> that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
>>>> things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
>>>> I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
>>>> "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
>>>> best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to
>>>> be placing such a demand on you.
>>>> You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
>>>> cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, grim,
>>>> belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
>>>> fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
>>>> maniacal, illegitimate, harmful, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
>>>> lame, self-righteous, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, nasty,
>>>> disgusting, lewd, repulsive, disagreeable, spiteful, threatening,
>>>> libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, perverse,
>>>> devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, hateful, paternalistic,
>>>> fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
>>>> suppressive, controlling, restrictive, censorious, deceptive, dim,
>>>> stifling, dyspeptic, despicable, uncaring, weird, crazy, dishonest.,
>>>> secretive, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, malignant, demented,
>>>> brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, aggressive,
>>>> mind-numbing, abrassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
>>>> abusive, socially-retarded, vile, puerile, and Generally Not Good
>>>> You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
>>>> degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
>>>> you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would
>>>> go away.
>>> This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
>>> intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?
>> I didn't write that swill, it was copied directly from pearl's website.
>> I believe her "wife" wrote it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?

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

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:52 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>>>>> You swine turd.
>>>>> You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth.
>>>>> You are a canker, a pus leaking sore, a weeping open wound.
>>>>> You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
>>>>> worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
>>>>> a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
>>>>> stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>>>>> You are a curdled, staggering, buck-toothed, bow-legged, mutant dwarf
>>>>> smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged
>>>>> birth into a hostile world made even more hostile by your presence.
>>>>> You are insensate, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the stupified,
>>>>> puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then died of shame
>>>>> in recognition of what they had done. They were a bit late.
>>>>> I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
>>>>> species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
>>>>> at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
>>>>> Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing.
>>>>> You are scum, the dregs of this earth.
>>>>> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
>>>>> drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
>>>>> you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
>>>>> frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
>>>>> queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
>>>>> You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
>>>>> nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
>>>>> ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even whores won't have
>>>>> sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention,
>>>>> and lost in a land that reality forgot.
>>>>> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
>>>>> obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
>>>>> emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
>>>>> loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meat slapper.
>>>>> Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get
>>>>> your dog to play with you. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You
>>>>> would watch p*rn' all day if the other inmates would let you.
>>>>> On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of puke. You are
>>>>> deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
>>>>> wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
>>>>> You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
>>>>> sorrow wherever you go.
>>>>> You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
>>>>> clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
>>>>> still would not have a clue.
>>>>> Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
>>>>> to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
>>>>> nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
>>>>> to access it ever so much more rapidly.
>>>>> And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
>>>>> statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
>>>>> What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
>>>>> tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
>>>>> desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the
>>>>> snake?
>>>>> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
>>>>> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
>>>>> way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
>>>>> of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
>>>>> collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
>>>>> Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
>>>>> stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit
>>>>> more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
>>>>> Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
>>>>> universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
>>>>> fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
>>>>> of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
>>>>> laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
>>>>> epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
>>>>> again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your
>>>>> ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
>>>>> trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
>>>>> The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I
>>>>> have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well...
>>>>> it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
>>>>> creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a
>>>>> bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
>>>>> Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and
>>>>> count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
>>>>> skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted and that
>>>>> everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
>>>>> that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
>>>>> things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
>>>>> I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
>>>>> "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
>>>>> best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to
>>>>> be placing such a demand on you.
>>>>> You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
>>>>> cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, grim,
>>>>> belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
>>>>> fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
>>>>> maniacal, illegitimate, harmful, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
>>>>> lame, self-righteous, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, nasty,
>>>>> disgusting, lewd, repulsive, disagreeable, spiteful, threatening,
>>>>> libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, perverse,
>>>>> devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, hateful, paternalistic,
>>>>> fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
>>>>> suppressive, controlling, restrictive, censorious, deceptive, dim,
>>>>> stifling, dyspeptic, despicable, uncaring, weird, crazy, dishonest.,
>>>>> secretive, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, malignant, demented,
>>>>> brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, aggressive,
>>>>> mind-numbing, abrassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
>>>>> abusive, socially-retarded, vile, puerile, and Generally Not Good
>>>>> You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
>>>>> degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
>>>>> you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would
>>>>> go away.
>>>> This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
>>>> intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?
>>> I didn't write that swill, it was copied directly from pearl's website.
>>> I believe her "wife" wrote it.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> See, you could have put the piece of text in quotation marks and said
> "This shows that your website is spiteful." But instead, you
> reproduced the piece of text as if you intended to direct it at Pearl
> herself. That's my point.

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

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
>>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
>>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
>>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
>>>>>>> an issue.
>>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
>>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
>>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
>>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
>>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
>>>>> develop.
>>>>>> What's more you
>>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
>>>>>> mocking you.
>>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
>>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
>>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
>>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
>>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
>>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
>>> a break.
>> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
>> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
>> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
> goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
>
> He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
> view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
> draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
> reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
> of what he did here.
>
> If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
> history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
> a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
> would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
> but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
> libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
> think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
> voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
> it's fair game.
>
> If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
> the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
> a tension in your argument here.

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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:2egsi.23795$fJ5.1037@pd7urf1no...

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

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

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

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

Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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


>> Wetlesen says "Infants have
>>
>>> the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
>>> is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
>>> English speakers as well.
>> I'm incredulous that a person of your intelligence would find this
>> obscure. It means that whatever the mechanisms that permit a human being
>> to talk they are not yet fully formed in an infant.
>
> Yes, that's fine, so in what sense is the "capability" already there?

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

>> The same goes for
>> it's ability to walk. Yet they do have the capability to develop these
>> skills, given time and the right environment.
>
> What does that *mean*?

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


>> No reasonably intelligent
>> person would find this obscure I'm quite sure.
>
> Well, I'm a counterexample, a friend of mine who has recently
> submitted a Ph.D. in mathematics, Peter Singer is a counterexample.
> Unless you're seriously going to maintain that none of us are
> "reasonably intelligent people".

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


>> I submit that you are
>> having trouble with this because you believe that there may be an
>> unpleasant a consequence to "getting it" and you are not prepared to
>> accept that consequence.
>>
>
> How about I see what my parents think about it? Would that be a fair
> test?

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

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

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

>
>>> In what sense is it always there?
>> Apparently the capacity to form neural pathways to enable abilities to
>> manifest remained. Perhaps the very same mechanism that the person's
>> brain used as an infant. A neuroscientist would likely have a more
>> technical explanation, but that hardly matters, there obviously *is* an
>> explanation.
>>
>>>>>> The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
>>>>>> have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
>>>>>> same principle as the flightless bird above.
>>>>> It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
>>>>> flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
>>>>> why not?
>>>> No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.
>>> So it looks like we now have three different tests.
>>> (1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
>>> contexts?
>>> (2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
>>> circumstances?
>>> (3) Do conspecifics have the ability?
>>> Those are very different tests.
>> That's all good right? The more the merrier, unless one test comes out
>> different than the others, and I don't think that is the case.
>>
>
> I think the different tests do give different answers, hence the
> problem.

They don't.

>>>>> In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
>>>>> structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
>>>>> kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
>>>>> Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
>>>>> so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
>>>>> as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
>>>>> You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
>>>>> capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.
>>>> It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
>>>> but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
>>>> abilities in question.
>>> But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
>>> all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
>>> suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
>>> You need to substantiate this claim.
>> The tests you listed above pretty much do that as far as I can see,
>> along with the complete absence of these abilities in non-humans.
>>
>>>>>>>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
>>>>>>> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
>>>>>>> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
>>>>>> Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
>>>>>> experience observing members of their species that they have the
>>>>>> capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
>>>>>> assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.
>>>>> Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
>>>>> the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
>>>>> radically brain-damaged human, then?
>>>> We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
>>>> because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
>>>> conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
>>>> you look at from that angle.
>>> I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
>>> the benefit of the doubt
>> Because of the considerations under tests #2 and #3.
>>
>
> I think it's only test #3.
>
>>> (why is there any doubt at all, using the
>>> test you gave just above?)
>> We can't verify test #1 without a neurological examination, at CT scan
>> perhaps, even that would probably be inconclusive. Some humans with
>> massive catastrophic brain damage have fully recovered functionality.
>>
>
> Well, can you elaborate on this point? Can you give me some examples?
>
> As I see it, the point of the AMC is that there are cases where there
> is no hope,

Describe such a person.

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

Meaning what exactly? We don't execute them?

>>> but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.
>> I meant it is absurd to attempt to conclude anything about dogs at all
>> by considering brain-damaged humans.
>>
>>> You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
>>> species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
>>> why species is such a big deal.
>> As long as humans continue to develop these abilities and no non-humans
>> do, people will, being bears for efficiency, use species as a simple way
>> to determine if these capabilities likely exist in a particular
>> indivdual.
>
> But there are some humans where the capabilities are clearly absent,
> on any reasonable interpretation of the word, yet we still don't doubt
> that they have high moral status. I know you're going to say I'm just
> repeating the AMC over and over again, but I don't see that it's been
> answered.

Maybe you could elaborate on "high moral status".

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

I meant the explanation is trivial, as right below.

>> history offers us NO examples of dogs developing these
>> abilities, while humans, impaired or otherwise do exhibit them. The
>> *only* room for reasonable doubt is with humans. With the vast majority
>> of all humans, there's no doubt at all that these abilities *do* exist
>> to some degree.
>>
>>>> So
>>>>> do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
>>>>> having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
>>>>> structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
>>>>> actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
>>>>> present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
>>>>> you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
>>>>> concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
>>>>> advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
>>>>> exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
>>>>> our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
>>>>> different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
>>>>> It's a bit more complicated.
>>>> I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
>>>> is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
>>>> that can develop under the right circumstances.
>>> But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
>>> humans have such a thing.
>> Of course it's plausible that there are some number of human beings so
>> radically impaired that virtually all semblance of "humanity", if you
>> will, is absent. What would you expect people do with them? Kill them?
>
> The point is that we don't doubt it would be wrong to treat them the
> way we typically treat nonhuman animals.

They aren't treated any better than beloved pets.

>> Why would you expect that? People don't kill their dogs for being dumb.
>> People don't kill any animal for being dumb.
>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
>>>>>> A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
>>>>>> non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>> Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
>>>>> a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.
>>>> Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
>>>> uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
>>>> whole section it is quite clear what he means.
>>>>> You're saying a capability is a
>>>>> special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
>>>>> without the corresponding ability being present.
>>>> The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
>>>> ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
>>>>> I mean, this may seem
>>>>> like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
>>>>> "ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
>>>>> clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
>>>>> may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
>>>>> as in the case of "capability".
>>>> Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
>>>> developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
>>>> study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
>>>> you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
>>>> the ability you have now.
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
>>>>>>>> That doesn't matter.
>>>>>>> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
>>>>>>> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
>>>>>>> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
>>>>>>> required of it.
>>>>>>> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
>>>>>>> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
>>>>>>> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
>>>>>> I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
>>>>>> question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
>>>>>> capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
>>>>>> have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
>>>>>> that it may exist.
>>>>> But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
>>>>> with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
>>>>> the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
>>>>> becomes relevant.
>>>> There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
>>>> abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
>>>> is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
>>>> that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
>>> I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
>>> in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
>>> case of nonhumans.
>> Let's disconnect the two cases to clarify things.
>>
>> With respect to non-humans first, there is *no doubt*, period. Not one
>> has ever exhibited these particular abilities so we have zero reason to
>> believe they have them. That's that, end of story.
>>
>> Due to the similarities between great apes and humans it might make
>> sense to protect them with some higher moral status, but even they have
>> not actually demonstrated the kind of higher brain functions we're
>> talking about.
>>
>
> If the achievements of great apes are not good enough for full moral
> status, then to be consistent we would have to say that humans who are
> permanently at their mental level - and there are plenty of those -
> are not entitled to full moral status either. And no-one would find
> that acceptable.

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

>
>> With respect to impaired humans, every one is different, every diagnosis
>> is different.
>
> But we would never think it permissible to treat *any* human, no
> matter how impaired, in the way we currently treat many billions of
> nonhuman animals. That's the point.

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

>
>> All we know for sure is that humans as a rule do have
>> these capabilities. Maybe this person has some rich inner experience
>> going on, it's possible. That's the doubt.
>>
>>>>>> It's the capability itself on which we are placing
>>>>>> the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
>>>>>> lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
>>>>>> abilities would ever manifest.
>>>>> But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
>>>>> possibility.
>>>> I would say not zero,
>>> I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.
>> Even if that were the case, it doesn't actually present the problem that
>> you propose with this argument. We don't assign moral status to marginal
>> humans based on their cognitive abilities, we do so for a long list of
>> other reasons, not the least of which are simply compassionate grounds.
>
> Compassionate grounds should apply equally to nonhumans.

Why? How? Which non-humans? Based on what reasoning precisely?
>
>> If animals are to ever earn elevated moral status by default, they will
>> not get it by breaking down the back door, they will need to earn it by
>> acquiring higher cognitive capabilities.
>>
>> You may wish to argue that all animals and non-humans should have the
>> same moral status regardless, but that's a different argument, and just
>> as hard a sell as this one.
>>
>
> We don't doubt that any human, no matter how impaired, has a
> significant amount of moral status. Hence there are no grounds for
> denying the same to nonhumans. I know I'm just repeating the AMC over
> and over again, but I don't see that it's been answered.

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

>>>> almost all cases involve some level of
>>>> diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
>>>> hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
>>>> religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
>>>> consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
>>>> backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
>>>> treat animals incorrectly.
>>> I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.
>> There are groups of people who believe in just about anything you can
>> think of, beliefs are funny that way. Once you decide to commit to
>> believing something and invest some of yourself in that belief it's not
>> easy to stop. It's a very good reason to cultivate skepticism.
>
> Which I do. I hope you do as well.

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

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

It depends entirely on the case.


>>> I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
>>> distinction.
>> I don't argue that we should ignore the suffering of animals, but
>> suffering in itself is not an advanced cognitive ability, although I
>> would say that those abilities probably tend to intensify suffering.
>>
>>>>>> It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
>>>>>> already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
>>>>>> would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.
>>>>> For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
>>>>> subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.
>>>> Not according to the quote I found.
>>> Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
>>> Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
>>> interpretation if you like.
>>>> What would it
>>>>> take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
>>>>> reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
>>>>> and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?
>>>> That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
>>>> don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
>>> Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
>>> rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.
>> No it doesn't, the AMC contains assumptions that cannot be verified. For
>> one thing, radically impaired humans are treated as a special disability
>> case, they are not judged in the same way as fully functioning animals
>> are judged, and you cannot simply presuppose that they should be before
>> making your argument.
>
> The assumption is that we judge both impaired humans and nonhumans on
> the basis of their individual characteristics. What's wrong with that?

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

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

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

>> Once this link is broken you cannot reconnect it.
>> Radically impaired humans are given a certain moral status for a list of
>> reasons which you must accept as reality.
>
> Doing it on the ground of "capability" is not satisfactory because
> that notion has not been adequately explained.

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

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

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

>> In short, along with being a
>> backwards argument, and an argument based on creating a rule from an ad
>> hoc exception, it is circular.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
>>>>>>>>> capability consists in.
>>>>>>>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
>>>>>>>> observation. The primary clue is species.
>>>>>>> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
>>>>>>> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
>>>>>>> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
>>>>>>> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
>>>>>>> criteria? How do we go about determining it?
>>>>>> Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
>>>>>> us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.
>>>>> That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.
>>>> Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
>>>> cases you mean?
>>> Which has not yet been rebutted.
>> Done, to death.
>>
>>>>> Could you
>>>>> perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,
>>>> It just does.
>>> Not very informative.
>> Yes, actually it tells us A LOT.
>>
>>>> Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
>>> I assume biologists could help you out there.
>> As they could you.
>>
>>>> and more
>>>>> importantly *what* is it giving us information about?
>>>> About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
>>> I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
>>> members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
>>> some explication of what this meant.
>> Ask a neurobiologist if you think it will make a difference.
>>
>
> It's the job of the would-be rebutter of the AMC to tell us how the
> current state of neurobiology can be used to undermine the AMC.

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

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

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

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

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


>>>> but that some exists already,
>>> I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
>>> they'll never develop the abilities.
>> "The" abilities?
>
> The ones you were talking about. Linguistic competence, reason, and
> moral agency. I thought you said those were crucial.

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

>> Which ones, to what degree? Every case is unique and
>> difficult to categorize clearly.
>>
>>>> and in most
>>>> cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
>>> I'm not impressed with the other reasons.
>> It doesn't matter if you're impressed with the other reasons, it doesn't
>> matter if some of the reasons are completely irrational, the fact is,
>> they ARE real reasons,
>
> You're being inconsistent. If they're completely irrational, they're
> not real reasons.

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

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

Basically, the AMC is a strawman.


>> and they explain why exceptional status is
>> accorded such individuals. That effectively breaks the link to the
>> cognitive capability argument.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.
>>>>>> 4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
>>>>>> develop these abilities.
>>>>> And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...
>>>> We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.
>>> You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
>>> reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
>>> the AMC.
>> I rebutted the AMC right above. Once there exists a list of actual
>> *other* reasons why as humans we extend moral status to marginal cases,
>> and such a list exists,
>
> I don't accept that any *good* reason has been given which would not
> apply equally to nonhumans.

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


[..]

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2egsi.23795$fJ5.1037@pd7urf1no...
>
>> It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
>> has looked at the page.
>
> Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.
>
> The Ultimate Flame
> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
> and obnoxious. ...
> www.ultimateflame.com/
>
> As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
> did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?
>
>
>

So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..

pearl wrote:
> Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
>> Rupert wrote:
>
>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>
> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.

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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Zwisi.22581$_d2.929@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2egsi.23795$fJ5.1037@pd7urf1no...
> >
> >> It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
> >> has looked at the page.
> >
> > Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.
> >
> > The Ultimate Flame
> > You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
> > You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
> > and obnoxious. ...
> > www.ultimateflame.com/
> >
> > As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
> > did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?
> >
> >
> >
>
> So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..

Yes, you are.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:qBisi.22586$_d2.3735@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >
> >>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
> >> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
> >> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
> >
> > If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
>
> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.

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

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

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

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

On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> >>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
> >>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
> >>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
> >>>>>>> an issue.
> >>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
> >>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
> >>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
> >>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
> >>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
> >>>>> develop.
> >>>>>> What's more you
> >>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
> >>>>>> mocking you.
> >>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
> >>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
> >>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
> >>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
> >>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
> >>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
> >>> a break.
> >> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
> >> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
> >> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
> > goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
>
> > He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
> > view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
> > draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
> > reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
> > of what he did here.
>
> > If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
> > history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
> > a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
> > would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
> > but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
> > libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
> > think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
> > voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
> > it's fair game.
>
> > If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
> > the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
> > a tension in your argument here.
>
> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

On Aug 2, 5:24 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:42:52 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 9:56 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:2lp0b3llnbv78bugh18h2181o8eim548b8@4ax .com...
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:fin0b31v051kdnu7fllsuooe1qrti4f2e3@4ax .com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews1h0b3dib6tvk0ujf8vd8ve5ul2po1v0rd@4ax .com...
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:16 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Why?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?
>
> >> >> >> >> A moral one. Keep your arguments with him on Usenet, not on a web
> >> >> >> >> page which includes photographs and details of his whereabouts. You
> >> >> >> >> want to go down Lesley's spiteful little road?
>
> >> >> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
> >> >> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>
> >> >> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
> >> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> >> >> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
>
> >> >> >> >Ball has continually,
> >> >> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
> >> >> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
> >> >> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>
> >> >> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
> >> >> >> spiteful,
> >> >> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> >> >> return for one received.]
> >> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> >> >> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
>
> >> >> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
> >> >> is spiteful,
>
> >> >No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.
>
> >> No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
> >> given definition of the term, "spiteful".
>
> >> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> >> >> revenge.]
>
> >> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> >> return for one received.]
>
> >> >> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
>
> >> >> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
> >> >> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
> >> >> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
> >> >> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
> >> >> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.
>
> >> >The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.
>
> >> No, the definitions apply and are given here,
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> >> revenge.]
>
> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> return for one received.]
>
> >> >Neither Rupert
> >> >or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
> >> >you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?
>
> >> I'm not.
>
> >Your calling Pearl's webpage "spiteful" in the context of your
> >behaviour towards Karen is really absurd beyond all belief.
>
> I don't call her web page "spiteful" in that context. I see it as
> "spiteful" in the context I gave;
>
> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> revenge.]
>
> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> return for one received.]
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> I see your web page in the same way: spiteful.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>
> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>
> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>
> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
> >> course of action against threats like her.
>
> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>
> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>
> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
> >> one-to-one basis."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>
> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
> >> son..
>
> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>
> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>
> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>
> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
> >> church communities where they can come into
> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
> >> them.
>
> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
> >> ON THAT?!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
> >Karen's no threat to children.
>
> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
> you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're a fool, Derek.

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

The tests you've provided give different answers.

> >>>>>>>> Do you
> >>>>>>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
> >>>>>>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
> >>>>>>> laryngitis?
> >>>>>> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
> >>>>>> for example,
> >>>>> I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
> >>>>> that infants have the capability of speech.
> >>>> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
> >>> There's no distinction in ordinary usage.
> >> But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
> >> on, long ago.
>
> > If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
> > what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.
>
> It's been done to death, you're stalling.
>

You really are a tiresome prat.

On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> >> Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
> >> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
> >> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>
> > If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
>
> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.

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

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

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

On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>
> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>
> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>
> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
> >> course of action against threats like her.
>
> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>
> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>
> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
> >> one-to-one basis."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>
> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
> >> son..
>
> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>
> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>
> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>
> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
> >> church communities where they can come into
> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
> >> them.
>
> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
> >> ON THAT?!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
> >Karen's no threat to children.
>
> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
> you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

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

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

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

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Zwisi.22581$_d2.929@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2egsi.23795$fJ5.1037@pd7urf1no...
>>>
>>>> It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
>>>> has looked at the page.
>>> Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.
>>>
>>> The Ultimate Flame
>>> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
>>> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
>>> and obnoxious. ...
>>> www.ultimateflame.com/
>>>
>>> As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
>>> did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..
>
> Yes, you are.

Don't be spiteful and unoriginal.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:qBisi.22586$_d2.3735@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
>>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
>> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
>> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>
> "I am primarily arguing with the self-serving, irrational
> windbag-like mental midgets who call themselves "ethical
> vegetarians" most of whom are suffering from a form of
> eating disorder." Dutch 01 August 2007
>
>> I particularly would love
>> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
>> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>
> "It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
> thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
> a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006
>
> 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
> etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
> and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
> painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
> themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
> through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
> every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
> target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
> ...'
> http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

According to that logic you are a bully.

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
>>>>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
>>>>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
>>>>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
>>>>>>>>> an issue.
>>>>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
>>>>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
>>>>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
>>>>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
>>>>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
>>>>>>> develop.
>>>>>>>> What's more you
>>>>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
>>>>>>>> mocking you.
>>>>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
>>>>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
>>>>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
>>>>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
>>>>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
>>>>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
>>>>> a break.
>>>> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
>>>> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
>>>> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
>>> goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
>>> He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
>>> view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
>>> draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
>>> reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
>>> of what he did here.
>>> If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
>>> history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
>>> a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
>>> would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
>>> but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
>>> libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
>>> think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
>>> voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
>>> it's fair game.
>>> If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
>>> the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
>>> a tension in your argument here.
>> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
>> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
>> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
>> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
>> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
> publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
> request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
> threats of illegal activity.

That's a reasonable request, you were correct to remove it.

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

It's hard to imagine anything more contemptible than someone who
condones pedophilia as Karen does, so no, I do not disagree with Derek.
If you read her postings on the topic she believes that minors can give
informed consent to sexual touching from adults and that there is such a
thing as a responsible active pedophile. In my view the only responsible
pedophile is one who does not act on his impulses, stays well clear of
children, and never communicates with other pedophiles.

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

Elaborate.


>>>>>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>>>>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
>>>>>>>>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
>>>>>>>>> laryngitis?
>>>>>>>> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
>>>>>>>> for example,
>>>>>>> I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
>>>>>>> that infants have the capability of speech.
>>>>>> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
>>>>> There's no distinction in ordinary usage.
>>>> But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
>>>> on, long ago.
>>> If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
>>> what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.
>> It's been done to death, you're stalling.
>>
>
> You really are a tiresome prat.

You really need to stop stalling. You REALLY have no valid reason not to
understand what is meant by capability in moralstat99. It means inherent
ability, i.e. eagles have the capability of flight, human infants have..
etc.

And don't use this as an excuse to snip and evade the rest of this post,
which I have re-inserted.


>> Wetlesen says "Infants have
>>
>>> the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
>>> is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
>>> English speakers as well.
>> I'm incredulous that a person of your intelligence would find this
>> obscure. It means that whatever the mechanisms that permit a human being
>> to talk they are not yet fully formed in an infant.
>
> Yes, that's fine, so in what sense is the "capability" already there?

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

>> The same goes for
>> it's ability to walk. Yet they do have the capability to develop these
>> skills, given time and the right environment.
>
> What does that *mean*?

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


>> No reasonably intelligent
>> person would find this obscure I'm quite sure.
>
> Well, I'm a counterexample, a friend of mine who has recently
> submitted a Ph.D. in mathematics, Peter Singer is a counterexample.
> Unless you're seriously going to maintain that none of us are
> "reasonably intelligent people".

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


>> I submit that you are
>> having trouble with this because you believe that there may be an
>> unpleasant a consequence to "getting it" and you are not prepared to
>> accept that consequence.
>>
>
> How about I see what my parents think about it? Would that be a fair
> test?

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

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

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

>
>>> In what sense is it always there?
>> Apparently the capacity to form neural pathways to enable abilities to
>> manifest remained. Perhaps the very same mechanism that the person's
>> brain used as an infant. A neuroscientist would likely have a more
>> technical explanation, but that hardly matters, there obviously *is* an
>> explanation.
>>
>>>>>> The primary way we know with relative certainty that these
individuals
>>>>>> have the capability of speech is by their species. This is
exactly the
>>>>>> same principle as the flightless bird above.
>>>>> It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
>>>>> flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
>>>>> why not?
>>>> No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not
sure.
>>> So it looks like we now have three different tests.
>>> (1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
>>> contexts?
>>> (2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
>>> circumstances?
>>> (3) Do conspecifics have the ability?
>>> Those are very different tests.
>> That's all good right? The more the merrier, unless one test comes out
>> different than the others, and I don't think that is the case.
>>
>
> I think the different tests do give different answers, hence the
> problem.

They don't.

>>>>> In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
>>>>> structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
>>>>> kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
>>>>> Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
>>>>> so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
>>>>> as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good
enough.
>>>>> You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
>>>>> capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.
>>>> It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave
knowledge,
>>>> but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans
have the
>>>> abilities in question.
>>> But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
>>> all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
>>> suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
>>> You need to substantiate this claim.
>> The tests you listed above pretty much do that as far as I can see,
>> along with the complete absence of these abilities in non-humans.
>>
>>>>>>>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
>>>>>>> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though
it were
>>>>>>> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
>>>>>> Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
>>>>>> experience observing members of their species that they have the
>>>>>> capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not
make that
>>>>>> assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.
>>>>> Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
>>>>> the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
>>>>> radically brain-damaged human, then?
>>>> We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
>>>> because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
>>>> conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
>>>> you look at from that angle.
>>> I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
>>> the benefit of the doubt
>> Because of the considerations under tests #2 and #3.
>>
>
> I think it's only test #3.
>
>>> (why is there any doubt at all, using the
>>> test you gave just above?)
>> We can't verify test #1 without a neurological examination, at CT scan
>> perhaps, even that would probably be inconclusive. Some humans with
>> massive catastrophic brain damage have fully recovered functionality.
>>
>
> Well, can you elaborate on this point? Can you give me some examples?
>
> As I see it, the point of the AMC is that there are cases where there
> is no hope,

Describe such a person.

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

Meaning what exactly? We don't execute them?

>>> but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.
>> I meant it is absurd to attempt to conclude anything about dogs at all
>> by considering brain-damaged humans.
>>
>>> You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
>>> species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
>>> why species is such a big deal.
>> As long as humans continue to develop these abilities and no non-humans
>> do, people will, being bears for efficiency, use species as a simple way
>> to determine if these capabilities likely exist in a particular
>> indivdual.
>
> But there are some humans where the capabilities are clearly absent,
> on any reasonable interpretation of the word, yet we still don't doubt
> that they have high moral status. I know you're going to say I'm just
> repeating the AMC over and over again, but I don't see that it's been
> answered.

Maybe you could elaborate on "high moral status".

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

I meant the explanation is trivial, as right below.

>> history offers us NO examples of dogs developing these
>> abilities, while humans, impaired or otherwise do exhibit them. The
>> *only* room for reasonable doubt is with humans. With the vast majority
>> of all humans, there's no doubt at all that these abilities *do* exist
>> to some degree.
>>
>>>> So
>>>>> do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
>>>>> having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
>>>>> structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure
which
>>>>> actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
>>>>> present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but
assuming
>>>>> you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
>>>>> concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
>>>>> advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
>>>>> exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in
which
>>>>> our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
>>>>> different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for
flight.
>>>>> It's a bit more complicated.
>>>> I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the
same. It
>>>> is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
>>>> that can develop under the right circumstances.
>>> But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
>>> humans have such a thing.
>> Of course it's plausible that there are some number of human beings so
>> radically impaired that virtually all semblance of "humanity", if you
>> will, is absent. What would you expect people do with them? Kill them?
>
> The point is that we don't doubt it would be wrong to treat them the
> way we typically treat nonhuman animals.

They aren't treated any better than beloved pets.

>> Why would you expect that? People don't kill their dogs for being dumb.
>> People don't kill any animal for being dumb.
>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
>>>>>> A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status
of being
>>>>>> non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>> Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're
straying
>>>>> a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.
>>>> Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence
where he
>>>> uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
>>>> whole section it is quite clear what he means.
>>>>> You're saying a capability is a
>>>>> special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
>>>>> without the corresponding ability being present.
>>>> The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
>>>> ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
>>>>> I mean, this may seem
>>>>> like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
>>>>> "ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
>>>>> clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
>>>>> may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
>>>>> as in the case of "capability".
>>>> Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
>>>> developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a
lot of
>>>> study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
>>>> you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
>>>> the ability you have now.
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
>>>>>>>> That doesn't matter.
>>>>>>> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without
some way
>>>>>>> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
>>>>>>> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
>>>>>>> required of it.
>>>>>>> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
>>>>>>> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if
you brush
>>>>>>> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
>>>>>> I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
>>>>>> question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
>>>>>> capability is from being in working order. All that matters is
that we
>>>>>> have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable
possibility
>>>>>> that it may exist.
>>>>> But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
>>>>> with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
>>>>> the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
>>>>> becomes relevant.
>>>> There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
>>>> abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities.
There
>>>> is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
>>>> that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
>>> I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
>>> in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
>>> case of nonhumans.
>> Let's disconnect the two cases to clarify things.
>>
>> With respect to non-humans first, there is *no doubt*, period. Not one
>> has ever exhibited these particular abilities so we have zero reason to
>> believe they have them. That's that, end of story.
>>
>> Due to the similarities between great apes and humans it might make
>> sense to protect them with some higher moral status, but even they have
>> not actually demonstrated the kind of higher brain functions we're
>> talking about.
>>
>
> If the achievements of great apes are not good enough for full moral
> status, then to be consistent we would have to say that humans who are
> permanently at their mental level - and there are plenty of those -
> are not entitled to full moral status either. And no-one would find
> that acceptable.

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

>
>> With respect to impaired humans, every one is different, every diagnosis
>> is different.
>
> But we would never think it permissible to treat *any* human, no
> matter how impaired, in the way we currently treat many billions of
> nonhuman animals. That's the point.

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

>
>> All we know for sure is that humans as a rule do have
>> these capabilities. Maybe this person has some rich inner experience
>> going on, it's possible. That's the doubt.
>>
>>>>>> It's the capability itself on which we are placing
>>>>>> the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish
or cows
>>>>>> lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
>>>>>> abilities would ever manifest.
>>>>> But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
>>>>> possibility.
>>>> I would say not zero,
>>> I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.
>> Even if that were the case, it doesn't actually present the problem that
>> you propose with this argument. We don't assign moral status to marginal
>> humans based on their cognitive abilities, we do so for a long list of
>> other reasons, not the least of which are simply compassionate grounds.
>
> Compassionate grounds should apply equally to nonhumans.

Why? How? Which non-humans? Based on what reasoning precisely?
>
>> If animals are to ever earn elevated moral status by default, they will
>> not get it by breaking down the back door, they will need to earn it by
>> acquiring higher cognitive capabilities.
>>
>> You may wish to argue that all animals and non-humans should have the
>> same moral status regardless, but that's a different argument, and just
>> as hard a sell as this one.
>>
>
> We don't doubt that any human, no matter how impaired, has a
> significant amount of moral status. Hence there are no grounds for
> denying the same to nonhumans. I know I'm just repeating the AMC over
> and over again, but I don't see that it's been answered.

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

>>>> almost all cases involve some level of
>>>> diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the
faint
>>>> hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
>>>> religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
>>>> consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
>>>> backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
>>>> treat animals incorrectly.
>>> I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.
>> There are groups of people who believe in just about anything you can
>> think of, beliefs are funny that way. Once you decide to commit to
>> believing something and invest some of yourself in that belief it's not
>> easy to stop. It's a very good reason to cultivate skepticism.
>
> Which I do. I hope you do as well.

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

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

It depends entirely on the case.


>>> I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
>>> distinction.
>> I don't argue that we should ignore the suffering of animals, but
>> suffering in itself is not an advanced cognitive ability, although I
>> would say that those abilities probably tend to intensify suffering.
>>
>>>>>> It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
>>>>>> already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
>>>>>> would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.
>>>>> For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
>>>>> subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.
>>>> Not according to the quote I found.
>>> Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
>>> Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
>>> interpretation if you like.
>>>> What would it
>>>>> take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
>>>>> reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
>>>>> and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?
>>>> That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and
absolutes
>>>> don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
>>> Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
>>> rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.
>> No it doesn't, the AMC contains assumptions that cannot be verified. For
>> one thing, radically impaired humans are treated as a special disability
>> case, they are not judged in the same way as fully functioning animals
>> are judged, and you cannot simply presuppose that they should be before
>> making your argument.
>
> The assumption is that we judge both impaired humans and nonhumans on
> the basis of their individual characteristics. What's wrong with that?

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

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

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

>> Once this link is broken you cannot reconnect it.
>> Radically impaired humans are given a certain moral status for a list of
>> reasons which you must accept as reality.
>
> Doing it on the ground of "capability" is not satisfactory because
> that notion has not been adequately explained.

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

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

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

>> In short, along with being a
>> backwards argument, and an argument based on creating a rule from an ad
>> hoc exception, it is circular.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll
tell you,
>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
>>>>>>>>> capability consists in.
>>>>>>>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities
is by
>>>>>>>> observation. The primary clue is species.
>>>>>>> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
>>>>>>> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
>>>>>>> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
>>>>>>> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What
are the
>>>>>>> criteria? How do we go about determining it?
>>>>>> Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species
tells
>>>>>> us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.
>>>>> That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.
>>>> Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
>>>> cases you mean?
>>> Which has not yet been rebutted.
>> Done, to death.
>>
>>>>> Could you
>>>>> perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,
>>>> It just does.
>>> Not very informative.
>> Yes, actually it tells us A LOT.
>>
>>>> Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
>>> I assume biologists could help you out there.
>> As they could you.
>>
>>>> and more
>>>>> importantly *what* is it giving us information about?
>>>> About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
>>> I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
>>> members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
>>> some explication of what this meant.
>> Ask a neurobiologist if you think it will make a difference.
>>
>
> It's the job of the would-be rebutter of the AMC to tell us how the
> current state of neurobiology can be used to undermine the AMC.

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

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

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

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

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


>>>> but that some exists already,
>>> I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
>>> they'll never develop the abilities.
>> "The" abilities?
>
> The ones you were talking about. Linguistic competence, reason, and
> moral agency. I thought you said those were crucial.

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

>> Which ones, to what degree? Every case is unique and
>> difficult to categorize clearly.
>>
>>>> and in most
>>>> cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
>>> I'm not impressed with the other reasons.
>> It doesn't matter if you're impressed with the other reasons, it doesn't
>> matter if some of the reasons are completely irrational, the fact is,
>> they ARE real reasons,
>
> You're being inconsistent. If they're completely irrational, they're
> not real reasons.

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

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

Basically, the AMC is a strawman.


>> and they explain why exceptional status is
>> accorded such individuals. That effectively breaks the link to the
>> cognitive capability argument.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these
abilities.
>>>>>> 4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the
capability to
>>>>>> develop these abilities.
>>>>> And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...
>>>> We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to
confusion.
>>> You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
>>> reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
>>> the AMC.
>> I rebutted the AMC right above. Once there exists a list of actual
>> *other* reasons why as humans we extend moral status to marginal cases,
>> and such a list exists,
>
> I don't accept that any *good* reason has been given which would not
> apply equally to nonhumans.

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


[..]

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
>>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
>> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
>> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>
> Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
> don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave out
> all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?

I start off with reasonable responses but I lack the Patience of Job.

>> I particularly would love
>> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
>> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>
> It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
> who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.

It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you refer
have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad. The
positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
would threaten your "unusual ethical views".

On Aug 3, 7:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
> >>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
> >>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
> >>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
> >> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
> >> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>
> > Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
> > don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave out
> > all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?
>
> I start off with reasonable responses but I lack the Patience of Job.
>

I have not tested your patience in the least. You have certainly
tested my patience plenty, but I remain fairly civil to you most of
the time.

Apparently it tests your patience simply when someone disagrees with
you. If that's the case, then perhaps a debating forum is not the
place for you.

> >> I particularly would love
> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>
> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>
> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you refer
> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad. The
> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".

Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I do
because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
argument. I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
DeGrazia.

You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good will".
Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the same
basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.

On Aug 3, 6:50 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> >>>>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
> >>>>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
> >>>>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
> >>>>>>>>> an issue.
> >>>>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
> >>>>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
> >>>>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
> >>>>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
> >>>>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
> >>>>>>> develop.
> >>>>>>>> What's more you
> >>>>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
> >>>>>>>> mocking you.
> >>>>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
> >>>>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
> >>>>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
> >>>>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
> >>>>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
> >>>>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
> >>>>> a break.
> >>>> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
> >>>> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
> >>>> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
> >>> goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
> >>> He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
> >>> view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
> >>> draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
> >>> reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
> >>> of what he did here.
> >>> If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
> >>> history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
> >>> a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
> >>> would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
> >>> but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
> >>> libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
> >>> think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
> >>> voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
> >>> it's fair game.
> >>> If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
> >>> the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
> >>> a tension in your argument here.
> >> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
> >> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
> >> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
> >> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
> >> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
> > publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
> > request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
> > threats of illegal activity.
>
> That's a reasonable request, you were correct to remove it.
>

I didn't comply with that request. If he wants me to do that he can
ask me nicely. He won't.

>
>
> > So, am I to take it you agree with me that Derek's behaviour towards
> > Karen was contemptible?
>
> It's hard to imagine anything more contemptible than someone who
> condones pedophilia as Karen does, so no, I do not disagree with Derek.
> If you read her postings on the topic she believes that minors can give
> informed consent to sexual touching from adults and that there is such a
> thing as a responsible active pedophile. In my view the only responsible
> pedophile is one who does not act on his impulses, stays well clear of
> children, and never communicates with other pedophiles.

Your disagreement with Karen over the issue of paedophilia is not the
issue. We all have our disagreements round here. The question is, is
there a rule that we respect one another's privacy or isn't there?
Derek used personal information about Karen in a way that seriously
harmed her without her consent. If you're prepared to endorse that,
then I don't see how you can criticize my behaviour towards Ball.

On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>
> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>
> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>
> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
> >> course of action against threats like her.
>
> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>
> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>
> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
> >> one-to-one basis."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>
> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
> >> son..
>
> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>
> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>
> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>
> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
> >> church communities where they can come into
> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
> >> them.
>
> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
> >> ON THAT?!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
> >Karen's no threat to children.
>
> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
> you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know, Derek, you're starting to get up my nose. I don't really
appreciate being told I'm not fit to work with children, or that I'm a
"spiteful little prick". I took down the latest changes to my page
because I was in a nice mood, no other reason. You're putting me in a
not-so-nice mood. If you want to help out your pal Jonathan Ball,
maybe you should watch what you say.

Let's get one thing clear. Is there a right to privacy round here or
isn't there? If there is, then I need to take Ball's name off my page,
and you need to apologize to Karen and make some effort at
compensation for the enormous harm you've done her. If not, then you
and Dutch need to stop trying to tell me what I can and can't do about
your good pal Jonathan Ball. Let's get a consensus about what the
rules are.

On Aug 3, 6:50 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> >>>>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
> >>>>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
> >>>>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
> >>>>>>>>> an issue.
> >>>>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
> >>>>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
> >>>>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
> >>>>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
> >>>>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
> >>>>>>> develop.
> >>>>>>>> What's more you
> >>>>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
> >>>>>>>> mocking you.
> >>>>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
> >>>>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
> >>>>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
> >>>>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
> >>>>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
> >>>>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
> >>>>> a break.
> >>>> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
> >>>> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
> >>>> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
> >>> goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
> >>> He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
> >>> view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
> >>> draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
> >>> reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
> >>> of what he did here.
> >>> If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
> >>> history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
> >>> a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
> >>> would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
> >>> but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
> >>> libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
> >>> think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
> >>> voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
> >>> it's fair game.
> >>> If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
> >>> the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
> >>> a tension in your argument here.
> >> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
> >> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
> >> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
> >> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
> >> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
> > publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
> > request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
> > threats of illegal activity.
>
> That's a reasonable request, you were correct to remove it.
>
>
>
> > So, am I to take it you agree with me that Derek's behaviour towards
> > Karen was contemptible?
>
> It's hard to imagine anything more contemptible than someone who
> condones pedophilia as Karen does, so no, I do not disagree with Derek.
> If you read her postings on the topic she believes that minors can give
> informed consent to sexual touching from adults and that there is such a
> thing as a responsible active pedophile. In my view the only responsible
> pedophile is one who does not act on his impulses, stays well clear of
> children, and never communicates with other pedophiles.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

See, that's the thing. You two, Dutch and Derek, good pals of Jonathan
Ball, want to draw this ethical distinction whereby Karen forfeited
her right to privacy by expressing controversial views about
paedophilia, but Ball hasn't done anything to forfeit his right to
privacy. I don't buy it. I don't think that expressing unpopular views
means you forfeit your rights. If we're going to agree that everyone
round here has an unconditional right to privacy, fine, then I'll take
Ball's name off my webpage, and Derek can start making amends for the
enormous harm he's done to Karen. If not, then you two can shut up and
stop trying to stick up for your good pal Ball.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Rkrsi.24809$fJ5.22049@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:qBisi.22586$_d2.3735@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> Dutch" > wrote in message news:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>>
> >>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had just
> >>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>>
> >>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the mirror.
>>
> >> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an affinity
> >> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
> >
> > "I am primarily arguing with the self-serving, irrational
> > windbag-like mental midgets who call themselves "ethical
> > vegetarians" most of whom are suffering from a form of
> > eating disorder." Dutch 01 August 2007
> >
> >> I particularly would love
> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
> >
> > "It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
> > thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
> > a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006
> >
> > 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
> > etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
> > and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
> > painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
> > themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
> > through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
> > every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
> > target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
> > ...'
> > http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>
> According to that logic you are a bully.

'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack and
feigning victimhood

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
...
c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and
counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or
feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions,
especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears,
which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent
self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated",
claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be
"deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...")
and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ...
blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You
think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied...").
Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray
themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the
piece. Or presenting as a false victim.
...
By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they
have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the
age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this,
but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has
been practised to perfection.
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

"Dutch" > wrote in message newsjrsi.25132$rX4.19569@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Zwisi.22581$_d2.929@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2egsi.23795$fJ5.1037@pd7urf1no...
> >>>
> >>>> It wasn't necessary, she knows where it came from, as does anyone who
> >>>> has looked at the page.
> >>> Most everyone who's been on the Internet a while knows what it is.
> >>>
> >>> The Ultimate Flame
> >>> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, ...
> >>> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous
> >>> and obnoxious. ...
> >>> www.ultimateflame.com/
> >>>
> >>> As I said, it was posted in response to ball's conduct. What
> >>> did he and you expect? Carpets of petals and golden goblets?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> So, spiteful AND unoriginal to boot..
> >
> > Yes, you are.
>
> Don't be spiteful and unoriginal.

Correct. Post-Its® on your mirrors and above your PC.

On Aug 3, 6:59 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 8:13 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> >>>>>>>>>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that's fine.
> >>>>>>>> It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
> >>>>>>>> not the ability.
> >>>>>>> Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
> >>>>>>> involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
> >>>>>>> the ability.
> >>>>>> Right
> >>>>>> So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
> >>>>>>> radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
> >>>>>>> linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
> >>>>>>> scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
> >>>>>>> everyday observation.
> >>>>>> I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
> >>>>>> any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
> >>>>>> young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
> >>>>>> they had innate capabilities.
> >>>>> Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
> >>>>> provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
> >>>>> that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
> >>>>> will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
> >>>>> different tests.
> >>>> And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
> >>>> It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
> >>>> neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
> >>>> A. Both are true.
> >>> If you're going to have more than one test, you need to say something
> >>> about what happens when they give different answers.
> >> It won't happen, there is only one result.
>
> > The tests you've provided give different answers.
>
> Elaborate.
>

(1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
contexts?

By this test, fetuses won't have the capability, and it seems at least
open whether infants radically cognitively impaired humans will.

(2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
circumstances?

By this test, fetuses and infants have the capability, radically
cognitively impaired humans won't.

(3) Do conspecifics have the ability?

By this test, fetuses, infants, and radically cognitive impaired
humans will all have the capability.

> > You really are a tiresome prat.
>
> You really need to stop stalling. You REALLY have no valid reason not to
> understand what is meant by capability in moralstat99.

You really have given no adequate explanation of it. You've given a
confused jumble of different tests.

> It means inherent
> ability,

Which doesn't mean very much.

> i.e. eagles have the capability of flight, human infants have..
> etc.
>

That really gives me no clue how to judge whether radically
cognitively impaired humans have the capability for reason.

> And don't use this as an excuse to snip and evade the rest of this post,
> which I have re-inserted.
>

I haven't got the energy at the moment. We're just going over and over
the same old ground. I'll see how I go over the weekend. Perhaps I'll
write up some sort of response to Wetlesen's essay, where I'll try to
cover all the points you raise in that part of the post. We can have a
webbed debate about it, and yes, I'll honour any requests you make to
withhold any information about you you don't want published.

> > How about I see what my parents think about it? Would that be a fair
> > test?
>
> I don't know your parents, would I consider them objective?
>

Well, they're not AR people, which seems to be your major test. Makes
all this talk about "objectivity" kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 3, 7:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> >> pearl wrote:
>> >>> Dutch" > wrote in
>> >>> messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
>> >>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>> >>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>> >>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the
>> >>> mirror.
>> >> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an
>> >> affinity
>> >> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>>
>> > Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
>> > don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave out
>> > all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?
>>
>> I start off with reasonable responses but I lack the Patience of Job.
>>
>
> I have not tested your patience in the least. You have certainly
> tested my patience plenty, but I remain fairly civil to you most of
> the time.

Your usual denial bullshit..

>
> Apparently it tests your patience simply when someone disagrees with
> you. If that's the case, then perhaps a debating forum is not the
> place for you.

Pompous twit.

>> >> I particularly would love
>> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
>> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>>
>> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
>> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>>
>> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you refer
>> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad. The
>> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
>> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
>> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
>> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
>> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".
>
> Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
> neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I do
> because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
> argument.

You're full of shit, the concept is as clear as a bell. You are afraid of
the consequences of accepting that it simply means an undeveloped inherent
ability.

> I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
> DeGrazia.

Your mind is closed as tight as a drum. You can't understand a simple
concept yet you swallow DeGrazia's convoluted garbage like ice cream.

> You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
> spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
> credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good will".
> Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the same
> basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.

Courtesy my ass. By this "AMC" bullcrap what you are saying is that by
eating chicken and fish I am doing the equivalent of killing retarded people
and eating them.

You ignorant creep.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Aug 3, 6:50 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> >> Rupert wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> >>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >>>>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> [..]
>> >>>>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
>> >>>>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted
>> >>>>>>>>>> text -
>> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>>>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point
>> >>>>>>>>> of view?
>> >>>>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your
>> >>>>>>>>> posts in
>> >>>>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it
>> >>>>>>>>> would be
>> >>>>>>>>> an issue.
>> >>>>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish
>> >>>>>>>> personal
>> >>>>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
>> >>>>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
>> >>>>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept,
>> >>>>>>> Jonathan
>> >>>>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
>> >>>>>>> develop.
>> >>>>>>>> What's more you
>> >>>>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's
>> >>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>> mocking you.
>> >>>>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him,
>> >>>>>>> well,
>> >>>>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so
>> >>>>>>> thanks
>> >>>>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
>> >>>>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
>> >>>>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide
>> >>>>>> quoted text -
>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>>>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
>> >>>>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give
>> >>>>> me
>> >>>>> a break.
>> >>>> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and
>> >>>> dirty
>> >>>> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile
>> >>>> someone.- Hide quoted text -
>> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>> >>> If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
>> >>> goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
>> >>> He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in
>> >>> your
>> >>> view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
>> >>> draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
>> >>> reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was
>> >>> proud
>> >>> of what he did here.
>> >>> If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
>> >>> history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
>> >>> a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and
>> >>> it
>> >>> would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
>> >>> but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
>> >>> libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
>> >>> think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
>> >>> voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
>> >>> it's fair game.
>> >>> If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
>> >>> the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
>> >>> a tension in your argument here.
>> >> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post
>> >> your
>> >> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
>> >> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce
>> >> it
>> >> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
>> >> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
>> > publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
>> > request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
>> > threats of illegal activity.
>>
>> That's a reasonable request, you were correct to remove it.
>>
>
> I didn't comply with that request. If he wants me to do that he can
> ask me nicely. He won't.
>
>>
>>
>> > So, am I to take it you agree with me that Derek's behaviour towards
>> > Karen was contemptible?
>>
>> It's hard to imagine anything more contemptible than someone who
>> condones pedophilia as Karen does, so no, I do not disagree with Derek.
>> If you read her postings on the topic she believes that minors can give
>> informed consent to sexual touching from adults and that there is such a
>> thing as a responsible active pedophile. In my view the only responsible
>> pedophile is one who does not act on his impulses, stays well clear of
>> children, and never communicates with other pedophiles.
>
> Your disagreement with Karen over the issue of paedophilia is not the
> issue. We all have our disagreements round here. The question is, is
> there a rule that we respect one another's privacy or isn't there?
> Derek used personal information about Karen in a way that seriously
> harmed her without her consent. If you're prepared to endorse that,
> then I don't see how you can criticize my behaviour towards Ball.

If you can't see the difference there's little hope for you.

"Rupert" > wrote

> See, that's the thing. You two, Dutch and Derek, good pals of Jonathan
> Ball, want to draw this ethical distinction whereby Karen forfeited
> her right to privacy by expressing controversial views about
> paedophilia, but Ball hasn't done anything to forfeit his right to
> privacy.

That's exactly right, he hasn't threatened anyone, directly or indirectly,
particularly not children.

> I don't buy it.

That's because you're a slimy little prick.

On Aug 3, 11:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >> > On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> >> pearl wrote:
> >> >>> Dutch" > wrote in
> >> >>> messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
> >> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >> >>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
> >> >>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had
> >> >>>> just
> >> >>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
> >> >>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the
> >> >>> mirror.
> >> >> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an
> >> >> affinity
> >> >> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>
> >> > Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
> >> > don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave out
> >> > all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?
>
> >> I start off with reasonable responses but I lack the Patience of Job.
>
> > I have not tested your patience in the least. You have certainly
> > tested my patience plenty, but I remain fairly civil to you most of
> > the time.
>
> Your usual denial bullshit..
>

No, the truth. Just because someone has a different perspective to you
doesn't mean they're in "denial". If you want to rebut them you need
to come up with more substance than that.

>
>
> > Apparently it tests your patience simply when someone disagrees with
> > you. If that's the case, then perhaps a debating forum is not the
> > place for you.
>
> Pompous twit.
>

Seemed like a pretty reasonable comment to make to me. You explicitly
say below that you find my position so offensive that you can't bring
yourself to extend basic courtesy towards me. Is it really such a good
idea to hang around here under those conditions? I mean, you can if
you want, but in that case you shouldn't come up with this rubbish
about how you have "good will" towards me and you're only trying to
help me.

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? You want to help me with
what you see as my problems, is that it? You really think this is the
way to go about it?

>
>
>
>
> >> >> I particularly would love
> >> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what it
> >> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>
> >> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
> >> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>
> >> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you refer
> >> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad. The
> >> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
> >> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
> >> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
> >> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
> >> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".
>
> > Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
> > neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I do
> > because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
> > argument.
>
> You're full of shit, the concept is as clear as a bell. You are afraid of
> the consequences of accepting that it simply means an undeveloped inherent
> ability.
>

Asserting this rubbish over and over again is a poor substitute for
arguing your case. If Wetlesen tried these tactics with people who
weren't convinced by his argument no-one would take him seriously, and
rightly so.

> > I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
> > DeGrazia.
>
> Your mind is closed as tight as a drum. You can't understand a simple
> concept yet you swallow DeGrazia's convoluted garbage like ice cream.
>
> > You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
> > spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
> > credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good will".
> > Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the same
> > basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.
>
> Courtesy my ass. By this "AMC" bullcrap what you are saying is that by
> eating chicken and fish I am doing the equivalent of killing retarded people
> and eating them.
>
> You ignorant creep.

Yes, that's right, that is what I am saying. How can it be denied?
What rational grounds do you have for calling it into question?

If you find it discourteous that someone simply express such a view,
then an animal ethics forum is clearly not the place for you.

If you want to engage in reasoned debate with me, that's fine. If you
can't bring yourself to stop being abusive, I'll probably just ignore
you. Your arguments are not so interesting that I have time for this
rubbish.

On Aug 3, 11:22 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > See, that's the thing. You two, Dutch and Derek, good pals of Jonathan
> > Ball, want to draw this ethical distinction whereby Karen forfeited
> > her right to privacy by expressing controversial views about
> > paedophilia, but Ball hasn't done anything to forfeit his right to
> > privacy.
>
> That's exactly right, he hasn't threatened anyone, directly or indirectly,
> particularly not children.
>

Well, actually, that's not strictly correct. He has repeatedly
threatened violence towards me, which is illegal. Karen illegally
threatened violence towards him as well, it's true. But Derek's
conduct wasn't in response to that, and as far as I know apart from
that incident she has never threatened anyone or broken the law in any
way, and is not likely to. The rational grounds for thinking Ball
might be a genuine threat to others are pretty slim, but they're
there. In Karen's case they're not.


> > I don't buy it.
>
> That's because you're a slimy little prick.

**** off, you ignorant jerk. Like I care about your worthless opinion.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Aug 3, 11:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 7:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> >> Rupert wrote:
>> >> > On Aug 2, 8:45 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> >> >> pearl wrote:
>> >> >>> Dutch" > wrote in
>> >> >>> messagenews:Lcgsi.23794$fJ5.20450@pd7urf1no...
>> >> >>>> Rupert wrote:
>> >> >>>>> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?
>> >> >>>> I thought it was pretty funny, particularly considering pearl had
>> >> >>>> just
>> >> >>>> said "There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page."
>> >> >>> If it's spite you're looking for, go take a long hard look in the
>> >> >>> mirror.
>> >> >> De-spite what harsh words may pass my lips at times, I feel an
>> >> >> affinity
>> >> >> for vegetarians and wish them only good will.
>>
>> >> > Then why don't you treat them with respect and basic courtesy? Why
>> >> > don't you just engage with their views in a reasoned way and leave
>> >> > out
>> >> > all the unnecessary and unprovoked ad hominem attacks?
>>
>> >> I start off with reasonable responses but I lack the Patience of Job.
>>
>> > I have not tested your patience in the least. You have certainly
>> > tested my patience plenty, but I remain fairly civil to you most of
>> > the time.
>>
>> Your usual denial bullshit..
>>
>
> No, the truth. Just because someone has a different perspective to you
> doesn't mean they're in "denial". If you want to rebut them you need
> to come up with more substance than that.

Your pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit tries my patience constantly.
That's the substance of it, now go ahead and deny it some more and toss some
more pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.

>>
>> > Apparently it tests your patience simply when someone disagrees with
>> > you. If that's the case, then perhaps a debating forum is not the
>> > place for you.
>>
>> Pompous twit.
>>
>
> Seemed like a pretty reasonable comment to make to me.

Everything you say seems reasonable and enlightened TO YOU. To me it's all
pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.

>You explicitly
> say below that you find my position so offensive that you can't bring
> yourself to extend basic courtesy towards me. Is it really such a good
> idea to hang around here under those conditions? I mean, you can if
> you want, but in that case you shouldn't come up with this rubbish
> about how you have "good will" towards me and you're only trying to
> help me.

I started with good will, I always do, you have all but exhausted it with
your pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.

> What exactly are you trying to achieve here? You want to help me with
> what you see as my problems, is that it? You really think this is the
> way to go about it?

If I knew the answer to that I'd be smarter than I am. I've given up on you,
now I'm just responding for the record.


>> >> >> I particularly would love
>> >> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>>
>> >> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
>> >> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>>
>> >> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you
>> >> refer
>> >> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad.
>> >> The
>> >> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
>> >> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
>> >> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
>> >> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
>> >> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".
>>
>> > Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
>> > neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I do
>> > because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
>> > argument.
>>
>> You're full of shit, the concept is as clear as a bell. You are afraid of
>> the consequences of accepting that it simply means an undeveloped
>> inherent
>> ability.
>>
>
> Asserting this rubbish over and over again is a poor substitute for
> arguing your case.

I've argued the case ad nauseum, you're impervious to reason.

> If Wetlesen tried these tactics with people who
> weren't convinced by his argument no-one would take him seriously, and
> rightly so.

He argued his case in a scholarly fashion, you're still impervious.

>
>> > I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
>> > DeGrazia.
>>
>> Your mind is closed as tight as a drum. You can't understand a simple
>> concept yet you swallow DeGrazia's convoluted garbage like ice cream.
>>
>> > You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
>> > spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
>> > credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good will".
>> > Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the same
>> > basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.
>>
>> Courtesy my ass. By this "AMC" bullcrap what you are saying is that by
>> eating chicken and fish I am doing the equivalent of killing retarded
>> people
>> and eating them.
>>
>> You ignorant creep.
>
> Yes, that's right, that is what I am saying.

Thanks for admitting it. How can you complain about being insulted when
you're saying that about me?

> How can it be denied?
> What rational grounds do you have for calling it into question?

I have filled an entire post with rational grounds, where were you?

> If you find it discourteous that someone simply express such a view,

I didn't say it was discourteous, I said it's ignorant, disgusting, an
unbelievably despicable thing to say. It demonstrates that you have
completely lost your moral compass.

> then an animal ethics forum is clearly not the place for you.

What better place to express the view that "animal ethics" is a
disrespectful, disgusting and despicable point of view?

> If you want to engage in reasoned debate with me, that's fine. If you
> can't bring yourself to stop being abusive, I'll probably just ignore
> you. Your arguments are not so interesting that I have time for this
> rubbish.

And I suppose saying that my lifestyle is the equivalent of murdering people
is respectful and courteous?

> > Seemed like a pretty reasonable comment to make to me.
>
> Everything you say seems reasonable and enlightened TO YOU. To me it's all
> pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.
>

Yes, that appears to be the problem.

> >You explicitly
> > say below that you find my position so offensive that you can't bring
> > yourself to extend basic courtesy towards me. Is it really such a good
> > idea to hang around here under those conditions? I mean, you can if
> > you want, but in that case you shouldn't come up with this rubbish
> > about how you have "good will" towards me and you're only trying to
> > help me.
>
> I started with good will, I always do, you have all but exhausted it with
> your pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.
>

Well, if you find it so frustrating, do you want to leave it? I'm not
fussed either way.

> > What exactly are you trying to achieve here? You want to help me with
> > what you see as my problems, is that it? You really think this is the
> > way to go about it?
>
> If I knew the answer to that I'd be smarter than I am. I've given up on you,
> now I'm just responding for the record.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> I particularly would love
> >> >> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember what
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>
> >> >> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other people
> >> >> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>
> >> >> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you
> >> >> refer
> >> >> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad.
> >> >> The
> >> >> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
> >> >> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
> >> >> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
> >> >> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
> >> >> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".
>
> >> > Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
> >> > neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I do
> >> > because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
> >> > argument.
>
> >> You're full of shit, the concept is as clear as a bell. You are afraid of
> >> the consequences of accepting that it simply means an undeveloped
> >> inherent
> >> ability.
>
> > Asserting this rubbish over and over again is a poor substitute for
> > arguing your case.
>
> I've argued the case ad nauseum, you're impervious to reason.
>

No. It's just that you've done a poor job of arguing the case.

> > If Wetlesen tried these tactics with people who
> > weren't convinced by his argument no-one would take him seriously, and
> > rightly so.
>
> He argued his case in a scholarly fashion, you're still impervious.
>

His argument is weak. No-one in academic philosophy would say "Anyone
who doesn't accept my argument is wearing blinkers" and expect to
retain their credibility. Philosophy isn't like that.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
> >> > DeGrazia.
>
> >> Your mind is closed as tight as a drum. You can't understand a simple
> >> concept yet you swallow DeGrazia's convoluted garbage like ice cream.
>
> >> > You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
> >> > spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
> >> > credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good will".
> >> > Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the same
> >> > basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.
>
> >> Courtesy my ass. By this "AMC" bullcrap what you are saying is that by
> >> eating chicken and fish I am doing the equivalent of killing retarded
> >> people
> >> and eating them.
>
> >> You ignorant creep.
>
> > Yes, that's right, that is what I am saying.
>
> Thanks for admitting it. How can you complain about being insulted when
> you're saying that about me?
>

It's not an insult, it's an expression of an ethical view. You've got
to cause to say offensive things to me. I expect you to engage with
what I say in a calm and rational manner, without irrelevant ad
hominem abuse.

> > How can it be denied?
> > What rational grounds do you have for calling it into question?
>
> I have filled an entire post with rational grounds, where were you?
>

I was here reading it. Your alleged rational grounds are very weak.

> > If you find it discourteous that someone simply express such a view,
>
> I didn't say it was discourteous, I said it's ignorant, disgusting, an
> unbelievably despicable thing to say. It demonstrates that you have
> completely lost your moral compass.
>

Yawn. Come up with the goods or shut up. Let's hear rational arguments
against my point of view.

> > then an animal ethics forum is clearly not the place for you.
>
> What better place to express the view that "animal ethics" is a
> disrespectful, disgusting and despicable point of view?
>

Such a view has no intellectual credibility. It's just empty abuse. If
that's what you here to do, well, I can't stop you, but you're
deluding yourself if you think it does you any credit or achieves
anything that any sane person would consider worthwhile.

> > If you want to engage in reasoned debate with me, that's fine. If you
> > can't bring yourself to stop being abusive, I'll probably just ignore
> > you. Your arguments are not so interesting that I have time for this
> > rubbish.
>
> And I suppose saying that my lifestyle is the equivalent of murdering people
> is respectful and courteous?

I am expressing my disagreement with you in a respectful and courteous
fashion, yes. You are not. If you find the simple expression of my
opinions offensive then you don't belong in an animal ethics forum.

"Rupert" > wrote
>> > Seemed like a pretty reasonable comment to make to me.
>>
>> Everything you say seems reasonable and enlightened TO YOU. To me it's
>> all
>> pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.
>>
>
> Yes, that appears to be the problem.

Yes, it is, you do nothing but spew pompous, condescending, evasive
bullshit.

>> >You explicitly
>> > say below that you find my position so offensive that you can't bring
>> > yourself to extend basic courtesy towards me. Is it really such a good
>> > idea to hang around here under those conditions? I mean, you can if
>> > you want, but in that case you shouldn't come up with this rubbish
>> > about how you have "good will" towards me and you're only trying to
>> > help me.
>>
>> I started with good will, I always do, you have all but exhausted it with
>> your pompous, condescending, evasive bullshit.
>>
>
> Well, if you find it so frustrating, do you want to leave it? I'm not
> fussed either way.

I couldn't care less what you do. I've rebutted your bullshit for the
record, that's good enough for me.


>> > What exactly are you trying to achieve here? You want to help me with
>> > what you see as my problems, is that it? You really think this is the
>> > way to go about it?
>>
>> If I knew the answer to that I'd be smarter than I am. I've given up on
>> you,
>> now I'm just responding for the record.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> I particularly would love
>> >> >> >> them to come down off those high horses so they can remember
>> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> feels like to have their feet on the ground.
>>
>> >> >> > It's all in your head. Vegetarians are just people like other
>> >> >> > people
>> >> >> > who happen to have a few unusual ethical views.
>>
>> >> >> It's not all in my head, the "unusual ethical views" to which you
>> >> >> refer
>> >> >> have a profound effect on people's cognitive abilities, mostly bad.
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> positive side of vegetable-based diets, and it is considerable, is
>> >> >> overwhelmed by the negative. I'm just trying to help address the
>> >> >> negative. You for example, a highly intelligent person and you are
>> >> >> incapable of understanding a simple word because you think to do so
>> >> >> would threaten your "unusual ethical views".
>>
>> >> > Wetlesen wants to use a nonstandard version of "capability", which
>> >> > neither you nor he adequately explain. I'm not responding the way I
>> >> > do
>> >> > because it threatens my views, but because it's not a very strong
>> >> > argument.
>>
>> >> You're full of shit, the concept is as clear as a bell. You are afraid
>> >> of
>> >> the consequences of accepting that it simply means an undeveloped
>> >> inherent
>> >> ability.
>>
>> > Asserting this rubbish over and over again is a poor substitute for
>> > arguing your case.
>>
>> I've argued the case ad nauseum, you're impervious to reason.
>>
>
> No. It's just that you've done a poor job of arguing the case.

No, it's that you are impervious to reason. You'e got too much riding on
this argument.

>> > If Wetlesen tried these tactics with people who
>> > weren't convinced by his argument no-one would take him seriously, and
>> > rightly so.
>>
>> He argued his case in a scholarly fashion, you're still impervious.
>>
>
> His argument is weak. No-one in academic philosophy would say "Anyone
> who doesn't accept my argument is wearing blinkers" and expect to
> retain their credibility. Philosophy isn't like that.

That's not what he did.


>> >> > I'm being a lot more open-minded and fair than you were with
>> >> > DeGrazia.
>>
>> >> Your mind is closed as tight as a drum. You can't understand a simple
>> >> concept yet you swallow DeGrazia's convoluted garbage like ice cream.
>>
>> >> > You're not doing a very good job of "addressing the negative". You
>> >> > spend most of your time here insulting people. I don't think you can
>> >> > credibly claim that your behaviour is that of a person of "good
>> >> > will".
>> >> > Put your money where your mouth is. Start extending to others the
>> >> > same
>> >> > basic respect and courtesy that I do to you.
>>
>> >> Courtesy my ass. By this "AMC" bullcrap what you are saying is that by
>> >> eating chicken and fish I am doing the equivalent of killing retarded
>> >> people
>> >> and eating them.
>>
>> >> You ignorant creep.
>>
>> > Yes, that's right, that is what I am saying.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting it. How can you complain about being insulted when
>> you're saying that about me?
>>
>
> It's not an insult, it's an expression of an ethical view.

It's an insulting point of view, you idiot.

> You've got
> to cause to say offensive things to me. I expect you to engage with
> what I say in a calm and rational manner, without irrelevant ad
> hominem abuse.

I am calm and rational, and telling you that your point of view is
disgusting, disrespectful, and hypocritical, and the argument from marginal
cases is bullshit. I've shown why.

>
>> > How can it be denied?
>> > What rational grounds do you have for calling it into question?
>>
>> I have filled an entire post with rational grounds, where were you?
>>
>
> I was here reading it. Your alleged rational grounds are very weak.

Your comprehension skills are weaked by your lack of objectivity.

>> > If you find it discourteous that someone simply express such a view,
>>
>> I didn't say it was discourteous, I said it's ignorant, disgusting, an
>> unbelievably despicable thing to say. It demonstrates that you have
>> completely lost your moral compass.
>>
>
> Yawn. Come up with the goods or shut up. Let's hear rational arguments
> against my point of view.

You've see the goods you ignorant clot.

>
>> > then an animal ethics forum is clearly not the place for you.
>>
>> What better place to express the view that "animal ethics" is a
>> disrespectful, disgusting and despicable point of view?
>>
>
> Such a view has no intellectual credibility. It's just empty abuse.

It's an excellent response to your incessant whinging about being verbally
abused, and it's something you need to hear.

If
> that's what you here to do, well, I can't stop you, but you're
> deluding yourself if you think it does you any credit or achieves
> anything that any sane person would consider worthwhile.

I find that it's always worthwhile to tell the truth.

>> > If you want to engage in reasoned debate with me, that's fine. If you
>> > can't bring yourself to stop being abusive, I'll probably just ignore
>> > you. Your arguments are not so interesting that I have time for this
>> > rubbish.
>>
>> And I suppose saying that my lifestyle is the equivalent of murdering
>> people
>> is respectful and courteous?
>
> I am expressing my disagreement with you in a respectful and courteous
> fashion, yes. you are not.

How is it respectful to give the opinion that a person's lifestyle is based
on the equivalent of murder?

> If you find the simple expression of my
> opinions offensive then you don't belong in an animal ethics forum.

Why does my opinion about your immoral assault on my lifestyle disqualify me
from this forum?