skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
"Rupert" > wrote in message oups.com... > On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people of >> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being rude >> to >> you. > > At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that > anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby > forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy > of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're not worthy to call yourself a human being. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > groups.com... > > >> > 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people of > >> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being rude > >> to > >> you. > > > At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that > > anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby > > forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy > > of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. > > Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're not > worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. This is a perfectly respectable position. You haven't given any good arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly respectable position to take. The idea that because I express it I'm "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More proof that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally be criticized on that basis. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just following your lead. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you > >>>>>>>>>>>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > >>>>>>>>>>> I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So > >>>>>>>>>>> I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence > >>>>>>>>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested > >>>>>>>>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the > >>>>>>>>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to > >>>>>>>>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage. > >>>>>>>>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble" > >>>>>>>>> without having read a single word of it. > >>>>>>>> I know that you assume that which you are required to > >>>>>>>> prove. > >>>>>>> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy. > >>>>>> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your > >>>>>> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral > >>>>>> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you > >>>>>> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all > >>>>>> know you can't. > >>>>> You asked me for an argument. I gave you one. > >>>> You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you > >>>> can't seem to support. > >>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? > >> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being > >> due equal consideration? > > > I directed you to a document > > Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Engage with the arguments in my talk. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
"Rupert" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> groups.com... >> >> >> > 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people >> >> of >> >> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being >> >> rude >> >> to >> >> you. >> >> > At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that >> > anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby >> > forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy >> > of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. >> >> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're >> not >> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially > support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status > of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. > If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in > relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct > would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. Mumbo jumbo, you're calling people murderers. > This is a perfectly respectable position. It's despicable, and idiotic. >You haven't given any good > arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly > respectable position to take. I've given plenty, and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. > The idea that because I express it I'm > "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. Nobody with a modicom of rationality subscribes to "AR". |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 3, 3:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > groups.com... > > >> > On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > >> groups.com... > > >> >> > 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people > >> >> of > >> >> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being > >> >> rude > >> >> to > >> >> you. > > >> > At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that > >> > anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby > >> > forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy > >> > of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. > > >> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're > >> not > >> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially > > support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status > > of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. > > If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in > > relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct > > would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. > > Mumbo jumbo, No, an accurate statement of my view. > you're calling people murderers. > > > This is a perfectly respectable position. > > It's despicable, and idiotic. > That's not a serious criticism. You've yet to offer any good reason why it should be rejected. > >You haven't given any good > > arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly > > respectable position to take. > > I've given plenty, Not a single one. > and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. > Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. > That opinion of yours is ignorant and worthless. No respectable philosopher would take it seriously. > > The idea that because I express it I'm > > "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > > statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > > a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > > Nobody with a modicom of rationality subscribes to "AR". You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>> oups.com... >>>>> On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>> 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people >>>>>> of >>>>>> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being >>>>>> rude >>>>>> to >>>>>> you. >>>>> At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that >>>>> anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby >>>>> forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy >>>>> of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. >>>> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're >>>> not >>>> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially >>> support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status >>> of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. >>> If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in >>> relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct >>> would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. >> Mumbo jumbo, > > No, an accurate statement of my view. > >> you're calling people murderers. >> >>> This is a perfectly respectable position. >> It's despicable, and idiotic. >> > > That's not a serious criticism. You've yet to offer any good reason > why it should be rejected. > >>> You haven't given any good >>> arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly >>> respectable position to take. >> I've given plenty, > > Not a single one. > >> and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. >> Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. >> > > That opinion of yours is ignorant and worthless. No respectable > philosopher would take it seriously. Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. >>> The idea that because I express it I'm >>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make >>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself >>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. >> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > > You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. I know very well what I'm talking about. People are just being polite, they actually loathe you and have no respect for the ridiculous ideas you're pushing. People should stop being so civil to you, your ideas are not civilized. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? >>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being >>>> due equal consideration? >>> I directed you to a document >> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Engage with the arguments in my talk. Post your "talk" here, nitwit. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if I killed a retarded human to eat him. So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. And you call this a respectable position? You're one sick ****. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > I'm not calling anyone a murderer. > > You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of > similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and > condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if > I killed a retarded human to eat him. > > So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. > > And you call this a respectable position? Yup. > You're one sick ****. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? > >>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being > >>>> due equal consideration? > >>> I directed you to a document > >> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Engage with the arguments in my talk. > > Post your "talk" here, nitwit. What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 3, 8:10 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 3, 3:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > roups.com... > > >>> On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > legroups.com... > >>>>> On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > oglegroups.com... > >>>>>>> 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being > >>>>>> rude > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> you. > >>>>> At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that > >>>>> anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby > >>>>> forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy > >>>>> of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. > >>>> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're > >>>> not > >>>> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially > >>> support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status > >>> of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. > >>> If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in > >>> relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct > >>> would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. > >> Mumbo jumbo, > > > No, an accurate statement of my view. > > >> you're calling people murderers. > > >>> This is a perfectly respectable position. > >> It's despicable, and idiotic. > > > That's not a serious criticism. You've yet to offer any good reason > > why it should be rejected. > > >>> You haven't given any good > >>> arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly > >>> respectable position to take. > >> I've given plenty, > > > Not a single one. > > >> and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. > >> Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. > > > That opinion of yours is ignorant and worthless. No respectable > > philosopher would take it seriously. > > Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. > You don't know what you're talking about. > >>> The idea that because I express it I'm > >>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > >>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > >>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > >> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > > > You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. > > I know very well what I'm talking about. No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. > People are just being polite, > they actually loathe you and have no respect for the ridiculous ideas > you're pushing. People should stop being so civil to you, your ideas are > not civilized.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? >>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being >>>>>> due equal consideration? >>>>> I directed you to a document >>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. >> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. > > What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. > > Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:10 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 3:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>> ups.com... >>>>> On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> oups.com... >>>>>>>>> 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being >>>>>>>> rude >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>> At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that >>>>>>> anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby >>>>>>> forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy >>>>>>> of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. >>>>>> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're >>>>>> not >>>>>> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially >>>>> support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status >>>>> of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. >>>>> If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in >>>>> relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct >>>>> would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. >>>> Mumbo jumbo, >>> No, an accurate statement of my view. >>>> you're calling people murderers. >>>>> This is a perfectly respectable position. >>>> It's despicable, and idiotic. >>> That's not a serious criticism. You've yet to offer any good reason >>> why it should be rejected. >>>>> You haven't given any good >>>>> arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly >>>>> respectable position to take. >>>> I've given plenty, >>> Not a single one. >>>> and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. >>>> Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. >>> That opinion of yours is ignorant and worthless. No respectable >>> philosopher would take it seriously. >> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. >> > > You don't know what you're talking about. Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. >>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm >>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make >>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself >>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. >>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". >>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. >> I know very well what I'm talking about. > > No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that > everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end hangout for a few deluded fools. >> People are just being polite, >> they actually loathe you and have no respect for the ridiculous ideas >> you're pushing. People should stop being so civil to you, your ideas are >> not civilized.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. >> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of >> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and >> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if >> I killed a retarded human to eat him. >> >> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. >> >> And you call this a respectable position? > > Yup. Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. >> You're one sick ****. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 3, 8:10 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 3:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > egroups.com... > >>>>> On Aug 3, 2:48 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > oglegroups.com... > >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:1186106001.648906.263330@d30g2000prg. googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> 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 **** off, how dare you come prancing in here accusing good people > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> being murderers? Then you have the gall to complain that we're being > >>>>>>>> rude > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> you. > >>>>>>> At last you're being upfront about your attitude: you think that > >>>>>>> anyone who comes in here and takes an anti-speciesist position thereby > >>>>>>> forfeits their right to basic courtesy. It's a joke. You're not worthy > >>>>>>> of having intelligent, civilized people engage with you seriously. > >>>>>> Calling good people murderers is no joke. You're not civilized, you're > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> worthy to call yourself a human being.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that if you financially > >>>>> support a process which harms sentient beings, then the moral status > >>>>> of your conduct does not depend on the species of the beings affected. > >>>>> If the beings affected were humans of similar cognitive capacities in > >>>>> relevantly similar circumstances, the moral status of the conduct > >>>>> would be the same. The same goes for me, of course. > >>>> Mumbo jumbo, > >>> No, an accurate statement of my view. > >>>> you're calling people murderers. > >>>>> This is a perfectly respectable position. > >>>> It's despicable, and idiotic. > >>> That's not a serious criticism. You've yet to offer any good reason > >>> why it should be rejected. > >>>>> You haven't given any good > >>>>> arguments against it. Even if you had, it's still a perfectly > >>>>> respectable position to take. > >>>> I've given plenty, > >>> Not a single one. > >>>> and it's not a respectable position, or a serious one. > >>>> Animal rights "philosophers" like Regan and Singer are jokes. > >>> That opinion of yours is ignorant and worthless. No respectable > >>> philosopher would take it seriously. > >> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. > > > You don't know what you're talking about. > > Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you > seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. > That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the other. > >>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm > >>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > >>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > >>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > >>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > >>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. > >> I know very well what I'm talking about. > > > No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that > > everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. > > I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" > component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > hangout for a few deluded fools. > Where do you draw the line? I'd be happy to have my position categorized as a "new welfarist" position. Just what exactly is it about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. > >> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of > >> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and > >> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if > >> I killed a retarded human to eat him. > > >> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. > > >> And you call this a respectable position? > > > Yup. > > Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals > to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding > substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage > like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" > > You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have > abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. > > > > >> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar circumstances. I think that this requires boycotting most animal products, not necessarily all. I don't believe that what I am doing is morally wrong. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? > >>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being > >>>>>> due equal consideration? > >>>>> I directed you to a document > >>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. > >> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. > > > What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. > > > Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? > > Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "Murderers and cannibals" is your spin on it. I have not used those words. I've talked this over with my parents. They think I have every right to express the position I do and have it seriously engaged with, and be treated with basic courtesy. They think that you are mistaken that I am not making a good faith effort at rational debate, and when you say "decent people should pour scorn on you" they think you are a nutcase. My parents' diet is similar to yours. They are middle-class people who used to vote Labor, these days tend to vote Green. They work for the Conservatorium of Music. My mother is a pianist and my father is an academic. They are ordinary middle-class people, somewhat left-leaning politically, with no particularly strong stand on animal issues. They have listened to me discussing my position and they do not find it offensive, although presumably they are not convinced. The impression that they have formed of you is that you are a nutcase. They think that you are the one that needs help. So there it is. I wonder what everyone else thinks. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: [..] >>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. >>> You don't know what you're talking about. >> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you >> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. >> > > That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers > acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate > deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take > similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the > other. What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers like you. > >>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm >>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make >>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself >>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. >>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". >>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. >>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. >>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that >>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. >> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" >> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end >> hangout for a few deluded fools. >> > > Where do you draw the line? I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. > I'd be happy to have my position > categorized as a "new welfarist" position. If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten fruit inside. > Just what exactly is it > about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be coherent to yourself and if possible to others. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. >>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of >>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and >>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if >>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. >>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. >>>> And you call this a respectable position? >>> Yup. >> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals >> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding >> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage >> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" >> >> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have >> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. >> >> >> >>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > > I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a > process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be > if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in > relevantly similar circumstances. There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do live there? > I think that this requires > boycotting most animal products, Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. > not necessarily all. I don't believe > that what I am doing is morally wrong. Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a tap dance signifying nothing. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? >>>>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being >>>>>>>> due equal consideration? >>>>>>> I directed you to a document >>>>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. >>>> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. >>> What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. >>> Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? >> Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > "Murderers and cannibals" is your spin on it. I have not used those > words. How does avoiding using the words make your insinuations any less insulting? > I've talked this over with my parents. They think I have every right > to express the position I do and have it seriously engaged with, and > be treated with basic courtesy. They think that you are mistaken that > I am not making a good faith effort at rational debate, and when you > say "decent people should pour scorn on you" they think you are a > nutcase. You've shown them some harsh words, not my arguments. You're their son, they don't want scorn heaped on their son. > My parents' diet is similar to yours. They are middle-class people who > used to vote Labor, these days tend to vote Green. They work for the > Conservatorium of Music. My mother is a pianist and my father is an > academic. They are ordinary middle-class people, somewhat left-leaning > politically, with no particularly strong stand on animal issues. They > have listened to me discussing my position and they do not find it > offensive, although presumably they are not convinced. Presumably, you think? If you weren't their son, and our arguments were compared side-by-side, they would pick you as the nut case. I suspect that they are patronizing you, in more ways than one, because you're their son, and they know that you're harmless. But if they were compelled to really engage with the implications of your words I think they would be offended. You are saying essentially that you find no difference between their diet and that of cannibals. > The impression > that they have formed of you is that you are a nutcase. They think > that you are the one that needs help. So there it is. I wonder what > everyone else thinks. Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. Perhaps they should have tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you seem like a spoiled brat. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
"Dutch" > wrote in message news:ENLsi.27556$rX4.20000@pd7urf2no...
> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves. 'PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CARNIVORE From Lyman to Niman in 10 Short Years by James LaVeck and Jenny Stein In 1997, while attending our first national animal advocacy conference in Washington DC, we were surprised to find that one of the speakers was a former cattle rancher. His name was Howard Lyman, and not only was he now a vegan, but he had publicly renounced the exploitation of animals and dedicated the rest of his life to sharing with the world the lessons he had learned about ethical eating, environmental sanity, and peaceful grassroots activism. His message, along with that of several other people we heard at that conference, inspired us to change our own diets and join the movement for nonviolence and animal rights. Now, ten years later, another conference is happening in our nation's capital. While several of the speakers and supporters remain the same, this year's most publicized animal protection conference will not be featuring any cattlemen gone vegan. Instead, it will be putting on the podium a multi-million dollar rancher, a pig farmer, a turkey farmer, and others known for talking of compassion and animal welfare while at the same time profiting from their unapologetic killing of animals. Now, ten years later, a well-known animal sanctuary, as well as organizations that are the public face of animal advocacy in the United States, have partnered with members of the meat industry to develop "new and improved" standards for the exploitation of animals, and to actively promote consumption of products such as "cage-free" eggs and "animal compassionate" veal. Now, ten years later, veganism, once widely understood within our movement to be a moral and ethical imperative, a commitment to not participate in the exploitation of others nor to cooperate with those who do, is rapidly being reduced to a mere "lifestyle choice," a "tool," to be selectively used as a means to an end. Similarly, the concept of animal rights, once widely understood to represent a zero-tolerance policy on the exploitation of animals, has become so diluted and degraded, as we shall later see, so as to be comfortably invoked by those who butcher thousands of baby cows and lambs every week. For us, and for many other activists we have spoken with over these last months, this turn of events has been equal parts disturbing and bewildering. For some it has even been the cause of despair. There is a sense that the movement we have given our lives to is being cynically co-opted and transformed into a caricature of itself. As we have worked to understand what is happening and why, we have gradually realized that something about this dark experience is eerily familiar. It is, in fact, strongly reminiscent of the cultural and political changes that have befallen our country over the last several years, changes resulting from the Neo-conservative domination of Washington politics. Rise of the Neo-carns As most of us know, the Neo-cons are a relatively small network of policy analysts, political operatives and elected officials who have been the driving force behind the radical shift America's foreign policy has taken over the last several years. Their Project for the New American Century, a think-tank now famous for spawning most of the players and policies behind the US invasion of Iraq, openly advocates for world domination through military force. What fewer are aware of, however, is that amongst the founders of the Neo-con movement were several former liberals, and it was their insider knowledge of progressive politics that made the Neo-cons so effective at discrediting their former ideology and advancing a new and radical agenda. It was the Neo-cons who conceived of making a doctrine of pre-emptive war official US policy. It was the Neo-cons who found a way to make secret prisons and systematic torture not only legal, but also socially acceptable. We have developed a hypothesis that some of the more mystifying changes that have come to the movement for veganism and animal rights in recent years can largely be explained by the adoption of the Neo-con mindset and methods by a handful of influential animal organization leaders, philosophers and animal husbandry consultants, several of whom are former animal rights activists. They are the Neo-carns, and they have partnered with certain segments of the animal exploiting industries, using their insider knowledge to redefine the animal movement just as radically as the Neo-cons have redefined the policies of our government, with a similarly disastrous effect. Our hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory, but rather a theory of cultural influence and unconscious imitation. By speculating about what might be some significant parallels between Neo-conservatism and Neo-carnism, we hope to inspire a community-based critical thinking process in service of a healthier and more effective movement. Enriching the exploiters Over the last few years, thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been killed, maimed, and psychologically scarred, their families torn apart. The economies of both countries have been bled just as severely to pay for all the mayhem, all in the name of "bringing democracy" to Iraq and "preventing terrorist attacks" in America. As doubtful as the benefits of this endless "War on Terror" will continue to be for those millions of individuals whose lives hang in the balance, its perpetuation is nothing short of a goldmine for the management and stockholders of a number of multi-national defense contractors and oil companies. For no matter how many innocent people die, these corporations will get paid huge sums of money to build the bombs, and then after the bombs are dropped, get paid even more money to rebuild the buildings and infrastructure the bombs have blown apart. In fact, the greater the destruction, the more money they will ultimately make. Such corporations have close ties to the Neo-cons, and it is well-known that some of the profits they make flow right back into the coffers that fund the Neo-con political machine. Similarly, The Neo-carns have formed an alliance with a group of large-scale meat sellers and animal exploiters who publicly proclaim their concern for the well-being of those they kill for profit. Working together, they are developing and promoting new standards for the exploitation of animals, and co-producing media events and public relations campaigns that culminate in mutually-beneficial legislative initiatives, all of it amounting to what we might call an endless "Campaign to Refine the Process of Exploitation." However uncertain the benefits to the animals and the animal movement will be, this endless campaign waged under the banner of "protecting animals" and "reducing suffering" is virtually guaranteed to bring millions in new profits to the "cage-free" egg industry, the "humane" meat industry, the organic dairy industry, and numerous other purveyors of "happy" animal products. In fact, the more the public is taught to channel their concern for animals into the purchase of these new and pricier products of suffering, the more money these large scale exploiters will ultimately make. Some of this money is already being spent within the advocacy movement, being used to sponsor animal conferences, for example, that are now presenting some of these animal exploiters as respected speakers alongside long-time animal rights advocates. Butchers for Animal Rights? Nicolette Hahn Niman, in a recent New York Times op-ed, writes with considerable passion and authority about the cruelty and brutality of the common agricultural practice of cutting off the tails of pigs and cows. "Eventually," she says, "our consciences and common sense-as well as science-should tell us that we need an outright ban." Described in Neo-carn media as being "haunted by the pigs she saw while touring pig confinement operations as an environmental attorney," Niman notes that "Studies have shown that sows confined in gestation stalls exhibit 'behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness.'" Niman's seeming recognition of the intelligence and emotional capacity of pigs is so persuasive, it nearly succeeds in obliterating our awareness of the 2,000 pigs whose lives are taken each week by her 100 million dollar company, Niman Ranch. One wonders if Ms. Niman has ever taken the time to observe whether each of these 2,000 pigs exhibits physiological and psychological behaviors characteristic of humans, innocent of any crime, being brutally executed one after the other. Then there's Randy Strauss of Strauss Veal & Lamb, who is quoted in Neo-carn media saying that veal crates are "inhumane and archaic" and "do nothing more than subject a calf to stress, fear, physical harm and pain," and has even gone so far as to say that "Animal rights are important." Strauss's strong-sounding "pro-animal" language, as well as his being highlighted and praised by the Neo-carns, distracts us from realizing that he, like the war profiteers, has a vested interest in the endless expansion of the exploitation and the killing. In Strauss's own words, "We're now the largest veal company in the United States... We're slaughtering and processing between 1,700 and 2,500 calves and breaking three to five loads of domestic lamb a week at our Franklin facility." "There are a growing number of people who, if they feel good about what they're eating, will eat veal," says Strauss. "If we can capture that market, we're going to increase the 0.6-pound per capita consumption market resulting in a healthier veal industry." Squandering the Work of Generations In a recent New York Times article titled "Veal to Love, Without the Guilt," it was noted that twenty years ago, Americans were eating eight times more veal than today, and that this dramatic change was due to a successful animal rights educational campaign and boycott carried out for years by thousands of animal advocates. The article then goes on to feature the comments of numerous parties who declare how delighted they are to once again be eating veal, except now, the "humanely-raised" veal products are rosy colored and sport a more zesty taste. At some upscale restaurants, this new "guilt-free" delicacy is rapidly becoming one of the most popular items. Could this have anything to do with a prominent farm animal sanctuary and numerous animal protection groups putting their moral authority and the names of their organizations behind new "more humane" standards for the exploitation of dairy calves? Does it have anything to do with their publishing lists on the internet of restaurants that virtuously serve up the flesh of "uncrated" baby cows, or their elaborate PR collaborations with meat sellers such as Whole Foods and restaurateur Wolfgang Puck, who is only too happy to tell the world how much tastier "happy" animals can be? Puck has recently launched a high profile PR initiative that includes the development of new "humane" exploitation standards. His company told Special Events magazine that it would use the resulting media exposure "to educate consumers and provide 'how to' information on using fresh, natural, organic and humanely treated ingredients." [Emphasis added]. This initiative succeeds brilliantly at marketing Puck's expensive products, among which veal is one of the top selling items. It also has caused the animals themselves to disappear. Now they are no longer individuals, sentient beings being exploited and killed. They are merely "humanely treated ingredients." This single example captures the essence of what is wrong with so many Neo-carn "victories." Lots of press and hoopla, the public image of animal exploiters lifted to the heavens along with that of their Neo-carn partners, and the basic truth of what is being done to the animals, the most inconvenient truth of them all, methodically swept under the rug. Irrational Rationalizations The architects of the Neo-carn revolution seem as blithely untroubled by the unraveling of the veal boycott as the Neo-cons are by the unraveling of American civil liberties. One prominent Neo-carnist offered the following in response to an advocate's criticism of his organization's role in the breaking of the veal boycott: Of course, when people stopped eating veal in the 1980s, it meant more animals were being exploited, since people largely switched from veal to chicken and/or fish (who are much smaller animals). Lots of animal people tout the anti-veal campaign as the paradigmatic "incremental abolitionist" campaign, even though the result was that far more animals ended up being raised/killed as a result of it. So just as the Neo-cons ask us to believe that we should allow our civil liberties to be curtailed as a means of protecting our "freedom," the Neo-carns ask us to believe that putting the animal movement seal of approval upon the new "humane" veal is actually saving the lives of animals. In both cases, there appears to be a comfort with assuming ownership and control of - and then "spending" - the decades-long work of large numbers of well meaning people in ways that directly contradict the original intent. Compassion for Sale And then there is Whole Foods Markets, one of the largest meat sellers in America, and now a major sponsor of numerous animal conferences. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is commonly presented as a business visionary committed to reconciling record levels of profit with philanthropic altruism. The Catholic Reporter, in fact, described Mr. Mackey as one of the few CEOs who "remain as models of ethics in both their personal and professional lives." However, it was recently reported in the New York Times that over the course of eight years, Mackey made more than 1,000 posts on a popular internet financial forum under a false identity, touting his own company's stock and deprecating a competing company's stock, a company he is now in the process of attempting to buy. In a popular vegetarian magazine, where Mackey has now twice been honored for his "vegan" values, he was recently described like this: Mackey's compassion for animals led to Whole Foods' implementation of a humane production system to ensure the industry's highest quality conditions for animals raised for food. Whole Foods Markets' stringent quality-standards program requires frequent auditing and compliance from animal agriculture producers, making it tricky for even the slickest rancher to slip beneath this progressive company's radar. However, after years of such unqualified animal movement endorsements and what is essentially a massive branding and advertising campaign carried out for free by trusting animal activists, apparently not even one of the "animal compassionate" exploitation standards Mackey and his suppliers developed in collaboration with participating animal organizations has been put into practice. According to the Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation web site, "although no producers have met these standards yet, many are exploring the opportunity." Perhaps the problem will be solved when Whole Foods fills its new Alternative/Compassionate Farm Animal Production Coordinator position. "We are looking for someone," says the job posting on the Whole Foods web site, "who can bring solid evidence that they can produce a meat product in a pasture based system that will leave the taste buds screaming for more, and then get out there and help others do the same." Curiously, at the upcoming national animal conference, Mackey's multi-billion dollar grocery chain will be presenting a talk titled "Whole Foods Market: The Journey Towards Transparency, Accountability and Responsibility with Farm Animal Welfare." Curious, and Curiouser Is it not strange that while the institutional animal movement has historically struggled to develop and sustain any significant collaborations with the peace, environmental, and human rights movements, it seems to have had no problem at all developing elaborate and rather intimate alliances with animal exploiting corporations such as Whole Foods, Niman Ranch, and Wolfgang Puck? And is it not also strange that nearly every adult in America is now aware of their option to buy some sort of "humanely-raised" animal product, an option that is being exercised more and more frequently - yet, at the same time, hardly any Americans are aware of the fact that animal agriculture is estimated by United Nations scientists to be directly responsible for 18% of global warming emissions, and that adopting a plant-based diet saves more carbon pollution than driving a hybrid auto? What the World Needs Now Rather than launching a much-needed massive global warming education campaign that teaches people how to transition to a plant-based diet, the Neo-carns have instead elected to commit millions of dollars and countless activist hours to convincing people to buy "happy" animal products linked to largely symbolic legislative initiatives. Possibly voted down, and more than likely to be weakly enforced, such initiatives suffer many potential limitations in terms of the real benefits they might offer animals. Yet, regardless of the outcome, these initiatives are a winner from the word "go" for "happy meat" corporations and Butchers for Animal Rights. Committing serious resources to the promotion of a plant-based diet, while it may be great for the animals, a moral imperative, and one of the most effective tools for addressing the global warming crisis, isn't going to sit well with the Neo-carns' animal industry partners. And let's face it, it is also unlikely to bring in as many donations as legislative initiatives that aspire to modify animal husbandry practices while introducing the public to new and tastier animal products. Actually confronting and criticizing the use and killing of animals creates some stress, and stress is bad for business. Consider how the Neo-cons scoffed at the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, and have failed to push Detroit to develop electric and hybrid vehicles, opting instead to offer tax breaks to buyers of Hummers. Could it be that Neo-carn leaders, enthralled with their newfound ability to conjure one illusory victory after the other, have all but missed the greatest educational opportunity the animal movement has seen in a generation? Normalizing the Unthinkable The methods of the Neo-cons and the Neo-carns are often both overwhelming and outrageous, and this tends at first to stun and immobilize those they are attempting to control. Recall, for example, the voting public's paralysis in the face of the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election. And then came the difficult and discouraging interval between the run up to the invasion of Iraq and the "Mission Accomplished" moment. More and more people were awakening from the trance, yet still, most of us remained silent, unsure of ourselves, afraid to step out of line and become a target like the Dixie Chicks and others who were the first to say out loud what many of us knew in our hearts to be true. That's where we are now in the animal movement. "Victory" after "victory" is being declared, and in such a climate, it seems "unpatriotic" to raise any questions or doubts. But the troubling consequences are mounting. It is getting harder and harder to hide the fact that segments of the meat industry are being enriched just like the corporations profiting from the war, and that hard-won progress in the battle for public respect for the rights of animals is slipping away. And as one boundary after another is violated, what was unthinkable and shocking the previous year becomes normal and accepted the next. The relentless quality of the process brings on a kind of learned helplessness. The Doctrine of Pre-emptive Defeat So here we come to a crucial point. Neo-cons and Neo-carns both damage the integrity of individuals and society in general by convincing us that we must violate our core principles in order to serve the common good, that by insisting on upholding cherished beliefs and values we are actually impeding progress. We must torture prisoners in order to be safe from attack. We must invade and occupy other countries in order to spread democracy. We must vote for politicians whose policies in nearly every other area are repugnant, because they have promised to support a certain animal welfare bill. We must partner with the animal exploiting industry to promote "happy" animal products even though we know in our hearts that using and killing animals is wrong. Both the Neo-cons and the Neo-carns offer grim proclamations about the future, creating a climate of despair that enables public acceptance of their radical violations of moral and ethical codes. The Neo-cons, for example, emphasize that the "War on Terror" is likely to go on for generations. They tell us that we must steel ourselves for the nasty business of an unending conflict on many fronts, and that those who insist on questioning their policies are "aiding and abetting the enemy," or "abandoning our troops." The Neo-carns similarly repeat over and over that "this isn't going to change in our lifetimes," presenting as fact their operating assumption that large numbers of people will not stop eating meat in the foreseeable future. The Neo-carns put forth this doctrine of pre-emptive defeat, and then convince other well-meaning people that their "happy meat" program is the only sane and compassionate course of action. Those who persistently question the wisdom of their approach are likely to be characterized as being "willing to abandon the billions of animals suffering now." Such intimidating rhetoric distracts our attention from the simple truth that there are other choices, including addressing the root causes, rather than the symptoms of violence and injustice. This begins with the simple act of saying "No," of refusing to participate in the domination and exploitation of others, or to cooperate with those who do. The Road Not Taken So what might saying "No" look like? Consider the following excerpts from a 2006 American Psychological Association press release, clarifying the association's position on the issue of torture and abuse: The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has approved a resolution reaffirming the organization's absolute opposition to all forms of torture and abuse, regardless of the circumstance. The Association unequivocally condemns any involvement by psychologists in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This APA policy applies to all psychologists in all settings. The resolution, approved on August 9, 2006, further underscored the duty of all psychologists to intervene to stop acts of torture or abuse as well as the ethical obligation of all psychologists to report such behavior to appropriate authorities. "Our intention is to empower and encourage members to do everything they can to prevent violations of basic human rights - at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else they may occur," said Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, President of the American Psychological Association. "It is not enough for us to express outrage or to codify acceptable practices. As psychologists, we must use every means at our disposal to prevent abuse and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment." Contrast this with the language from a letter published on the Whole Foods web site, signed by 17 animal advocacy groups regarding their position on the development and use of "compassionate" standards for animal exploitation: The undersigned animal welfare, animal protection and animal rights organizations would like to express their appreciation and support for the pioneering initiative being taken by Whole Foods Market in setting Farm Animal Compassionate Standards. We hope and expect that these standards will improve the lives of millions of animals. As you consider these two approaches, ask yourself what message each sends to the world about the morality of practicing violence against others. Ask yourself which inspires you to get involved and take a stand against injustice. The Journey Home It is time to stop selling off our movement's ethical foundations piece by piece in exchange for illusory short-term gains. It is time instead to devote our collective wisdom, energy and resources to creating the nonviolent culture our planet is crying out for. It is time to put our full support behind those developing a nonviolent cuisine, nonviolent clothing, nonviolent art, nonviolent education, nonviolent technology, nonviolent laws, and nonviolent foreign policy. For the first time in history, human society has the ability to evolve and transform on a planetary scale, and this new ability comes to us at the same time as our collective impact on the world's ecosystem threatens disaster. Never has the average person had the ability to do so much harm, or so much good. This time of crisis teaches us as never before how profoundly interconnected our lives are, and how we must now cultivate a holistic perspective. We must lift our gaze up from the ground at our feet, and make our decisions while looking much further down the stream of time, at least several generations ahead. In this larger, longer term view, as great as the problems caused by Neo-conservatism and Neo-carnism may seem to be, they ultimately serve the purpose of awakening a deeper understanding and a deeper commitment in us all. These inherently flawed ideologies have only gained a foothold because we have allowed our philosophy to be corrupted and our language to be degraded, because we have lost sight of our vision, because we have forgotten who we are. In answering their challenge and regaining our movement's health, we have the chance to rediscover the best parts of ourselves and the most exciting aspect of the human journey- choice. It's up to us to choose the vision that will shape our world, and the values that will guide us along the way. Will it be a vision of a "compassionate" seal of approval on every package of animal flesh? Or a vision of every child in America raised on a non-violent diet and receiving a humane education? Will it be a vision of endless supermarket shelves lined with cage-free eggs? Or a vision of vegan restaurants on every corner, in every town? Will it be a vision of animal activists collaborating with "kinder, gentler" animal exploiters to cultivate the "sensitive carnivore"? Or a vision of animal activists and former animal farmers joining with environmental and human rights activists to combat violence, hunger, disease, and global warming? Will it be a compromised, ends-justifies-the-means vision forged upon the assumption of defeat? Or an inspired, confident, long-term vision that fosters peace and planetary transformation? Our vision is what gives us strength during the darkest times. It is what gives us moral authority when we speak out for the vulnerable. It is what inspires others to become involved. It is what makes our hope for the world more than just a fantasy. If we faithfully serve our vision, if we fiercely protect and support it, if we defend it from co-option and corruption-then, and only then, will we have a real chance of bringing our vision to life. --------------------------------- Post script: Following publication of this essay, a helpful reader brought to our attention a powerful article recently published in Vanity Fair magazine, "Rorschach and Awe," which explores the involvement of psychologists in interrogation and torture. As it turns out, there are many outside observers as well as practitioners within the American Psychological Association that believe that the APA's policy regarding torture referred to in this essay is not strong enough, as, for example, it does not specifically prohibit their members from participating in interrogations. The article also points out the division and conflict that has developed in the APA as a result of the involvement of some psychologists in the actual design of interrogation techniques. --------------------------------- Other Essays on Related Topics: Compassion for Sale? Doublethink Meets Doublefeel as Happy Meat Comes of Age Invasion of the Movement Snatchers A Social Justice Cause Falls Prey to the Doctrine of "Necessary Evil" Truthiness is Stranger Than Fiction The Hidden Cost of Selling the public on "Cage-Free" Eggs --------------------------------- Copyright © 2007 Tribe of Heart Ltd. All rights reserved http://www.tribeofheart.org/tohhtml/pnac.htm |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote > >> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > > Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves. > Palpable nonsense. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > >> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > > > > Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves. > > > > Palpable nonsense. What? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no... >> pearl wrote: >>> "Dutch" > wrote >>> >>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end >>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves. >>> >> Palpable nonsense. > > What? > > The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 2:02 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: > > [..] > > >>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. > >>> You don't know what you're talking about. > >> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you > >> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. > > > That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers > > acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate > > deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take > > similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the > > other. > > What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that > humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical > research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers > like you. > Here you're just flying in the face of the plain facts. > > > > > >>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm > >>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > >>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > >>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > >>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > >>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. > >>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. > >>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that > >>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. > >> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" > >> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > >> hangout for a few deluded fools. > > > Where do you draw the line? > > I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very > way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that > non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a > insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like > "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of > credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. > > > I'd be happy to have my position > > categorized as a "new welfarist" position. > > If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten > fruit inside. > > > Just what exactly is it > > about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? > > A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer > is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, > to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be > coherent to yourself and if possible to others. Nonsense. There's no good reason why my position is any less credible than yours. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 2:12 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. > >>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of > >>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and > >>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if > >>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. > >>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. > >>>> And you call this a respectable position? > >>> Yup. > >> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals > >> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding > >> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage > >> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" > > >> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have > >> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. > > >>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a > > process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be > > if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in > > relevantly similar circumstances. > > There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, Irrelevant. > so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do > live there? > > > I think that this requires > > boycotting most animal products, > > Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in > the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. > In general, animal food products are much worse and they're also much easier to avoid. There may be a case for boycotting some non-animal products as well, yes. > > not necessarily all. I don't believe > > that what I am doing is morally wrong. > > Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd > live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? Yes, if the level of difficulty in boycotting the products in question were similar. > Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the > argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a > tap dance signifying nothing. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 2:27 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? > >>>>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being > >>>>>>>> due equal consideration? > >>>>>>> I directed you to a document > >>>>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. > >>>> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. > >>> What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. > >>> Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? > >> Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > "Murderers and cannibals" is your spin on it. I have not used those > > words. > > How does avoiding using the words make your insinuations any less insulting? > I have offered an argument which is critical of what you do. I've considered the argument carefully and I think it deserves some consideration. If you find my support for the argument insulting, that's really not my problem. No reasonable person finds it insulting. You're welcome to try to engage with it rationally if you want to. > > I've talked this over with my parents. They think I have every right > > to express the position I do and have it seriously engaged with, and > > be treated with basic courtesy. They think that you are mistaken that > > I am not making a good faith effort at rational debate, and when you > > say "decent people should pour scorn on you" they think you are a > > nutcase. > > You've shown them some harsh words, not my arguments. You're their son, > they don't want scorn heaped on their son. > You're not offering any arguments at the moment, you're just being abusive. They wouldn't alter their judgement of your current behaviour if I were to show them the arguments you've offered on other occasions. That's not relevant, of course you're entitled to offer those arguments, but that has no bearing on the way you're behaving now. Nor would they alter their judgement if it were someone other than their son involved. They're reasonable people who think that people are entitled to put forward arguments and propositions in good faith without being abused. All reasonable adults would react that way to the way you're carrying on at the moment: "What a nutcase." > > My parents' diet is similar to yours. They are middle-class people who > > used to vote Labor, these days tend to vote Green. They work for the > > Conservatorium of Music. My mother is a pianist and my father is an > > academic. They are ordinary middle-class people, somewhat left-leaning > > politically, with no particularly strong stand on animal issues. They > > have listened to me discussing my position and they do not find it > > offensive, although presumably they are not convinced. > > Presumably, you think? If you weren't their son, and our arguments were > compared side-by-side, they would pick you as the nut case. Wrong. If it were just a question of the actual arguments we have offered, they would think we have both made cases which are worthy of some consideration, which is true. When it comes to your contention that the simple fact that I have expressed my position means I have forfeited my right to basic courtesy, that I am "not civilized", "not worthy to call myself a human being", and "all decent people should heap scorn on me", then of course they would think you were a nutcase regardless of who was involved. Any reasonable, decent person would. > I suspect > that they are patronizing you, in more ways than one, because you're > their son, and they know that you're harmless. Yes, I thought we might get some speculations from you about what my parents really think of me. How generous of you, now that Ball has slunk away in humiliation, for you to don his clown suit in his absence. My parents think my position is a perfectly intellectually respectable one and they think that I defend it in an articulate and interesting manner. They have a lot of respect for the seriousness with which I have engaged with the issue. So do all of my non-AR friends, which certainly includes some very intelligent and well-educated people. So does Malcolm France, the directory of Laboratory Animal Services at the University of Sydney. > But if they were > compelled to really engage with the implications of your words I think > they would be offended. Groundless speculation. I have discussed this with them on my occasions and they're not offended. No reasonable person would be offended simply by someone putting forward this position for consideration. > You are saying essentially that you find no > difference between their diet and that of cannibals. > > > The impression > > > that they have formed of you is that you are a nutcase. They think > > that you are the one that needs help. So there it is. I wonder what > > everyone else thinks. > > Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. Yes, certainly, no doubt about that. I am very fortunate to have parents like them and I am very grateful for everything they have done for me. However, that's beside the point. There's no particular reason why they should say "We think that guy is a nutcase" just because they're supportive loving parents. There's no reason why they should express any view about any of the issues discussed here at all just because they're supportive loving parents. Being supportive loving parents would just involve them saying "Well, you're entitled to your view and he's entitled to his, and you can engage with him if you like, but you don't have to engage with him if you don't want to." They're saying they think you're a nutcase because they do, based on the facts which I have presented to them about you. Most reasonable adults would draw that conclusion. > Perhaps they should have > tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you > seem like a spoiled brat. Would you care to elaborate on what has led you to that conclusion? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 4, 2:27 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. Perhaps they should have > tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you > seem like a spoiled brat. You know, Dutch, I really marvel that you feel that you are in a position to talk to me like that when you are on the public record as having lied about whether you have kids or not. My parents brought me up better than that, I can assure you. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:02 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: >> [..] >> >>>>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. >>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. >>>> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you >>>> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. >>> That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers >>> acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate >>> deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take >>> similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the >>> other. >> What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that >> humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical >> research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers >> like you. >> > > Here you're just flying in the face of the plain facts. The number of serious academics, scientists and philosophers who subscribe to the notion of Animal Rights is tiny, probably smaller than the proportion of animal rights adherents in the general population, which is a fraction of a percent. It's simply not a serious idea. That's not to say it's irrelevant, to the extent that ARAs occupy positions of power or activists resort to various forms of violence it becomes a serious concern. >>>>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm >>>>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make >>>>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself >>>>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. >>>>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". >>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. >>>>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. >>>>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that >>>>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. >>>> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" >>>> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end >>>> hangout for a few deluded fools. >>> Where do you draw the line? >> I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very >> way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that >> non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a >> insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like >> "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of >> credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. >> >>> I'd be happy to have my position >>> categorized as a "new welfarist" position. >> If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten >> fruit inside. >> >>> Just what exactly is it >>> about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? >> A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer >> is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, >> to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be >> coherent to yourself and if possible to others. > > Nonsense. There's no good reason why my position is any less credible > than yours. Yes there is, my goals are attainable, they relate to the real world, "Animal Rights" proposes a philosophical model which bears no relation to the real world. Regan waxes eloquently in those lilting tones of his about the right of animals to be given respect by humans, not to be harmed or exploited for our purposes. The way he actualizes that principle in his own life is via the familiar "vegan" formula, attempting to eliminate the usual suspects, "animal products" from his lifestyle. But this is barely a token measure, animal products account for maybe a half dozen species of the tens of thousands that we harm constantly, and must harm if we are to compete and thrive as a species in the world. So where is this respect for "subjects-of-a-life"? It's purely fantasy being perpetrated by a charismatic charlatan. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:12 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. >>>>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of >>>>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and >>>>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if >>>>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. >>>>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. >>>>>> And you call this a respectable position? >>>>> Yup. >>>> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals >>>> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding >>>> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage >>>> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" >>>> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have >>>> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. >>>>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a >>> process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be >>> if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in >>> relevantly similar circumstances. >> There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, > > Irrelevant. What? It's the basis of your argument. >> so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do >> live there? >> >>> I think that this requires >>> boycotting most animal products, >> Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in >> the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. >> > > In general, animal food products are much worse But we don't live our lives "in general" when we live according to principles, we live according to specific actions which comply with those principles. Avoiding animal products and doing nothing more, the vegan formula, is a lie, it does not respect "subjects-of-a-life". > and they're also much > easier to avoid. Rice is easy to avoid. You're making the assumption that you have not proven, that dividing food into animal products and non-animal products is a valid expression of the principle expressed by Regan. > There may be a case for boycotting some non-animal > products as well, yes. That's conveniently vague. If you are called upon to allow "subject-of-a-life" animals to live their lives without your interference then consuming commercially grown food and other agricultural products like cotton and wool is certainly off limits. You also better get ready to accommodate a lot of hungry rodents we currently exterminate. >>> not necessarily all. I don't believe >>> that what I am doing is morally wrong. >> Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd >> live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? > > Yes, if the level of difficulty in boycotting the products in question > were similar. How difficult is to to boycott rice? > >> Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the >> argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a >> tap dance signifying nothing. Just like Regan, a lot of bluster and rhetoric without substance. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 5, 1:13 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2:02 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: > >> [..] > > >>>>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. > >>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. > >>>> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you > >>>> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. > >>> That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers > >>> acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate > >>> deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take > >>> similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the > >>> other. > >> What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that > >> humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical > >> research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers > >> like you. > > > Here you're just flying in the face of the plain facts. > > The number of serious academics, scientists and philosophers who > subscribe to the notion of Animal Rights is tiny, probably smaller than > the proportion of animal rights adherents in the general population, > which is a fraction of a percent. It's simply not a serious idea. That's > not to say it's irrelevant, to the extent that ARAs occupy positions of > power or activists resort to various forms of violence it becomes a > serious concern. > Incorrect. The number of academics who subscribe to animal liberation or animal rights is much *larger* than the proportion of animal rights adherents in the general population, and *everyone* acknowledges it as a serious idea that needs to be engaged with. Animal rights and animal liberation are acknolwedged in academia as serious ideas. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm > >>>>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > >>>>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > >>>>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > >>>>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > >>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. > >>>>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. > >>>>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that > >>>>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. > >>>> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" > >>>> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > >>>> hangout for a few deluded fools. > >>> Where do you draw the line? > >> I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very > >> way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that > >> non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a > >> insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like > >> "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of > >> credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. > > >>> I'd be happy to have my position > >>> categorized as a "new welfarist" position. > >> If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten > >> fruit inside. > > >>> Just what exactly is it > >>> about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? > >> A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer > >> is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, > >> to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be > >> coherent to yourself and if possible to others. > > > Nonsense. There's no good reason why my position is any less credible > > than yours. > > Yes there is, my goals are attainable, they relate to the real world, So are mine. > "Animal Rights" proposes a philosophical model which bears no relation > to the real world. Regan waxes eloquently in those lilting tones of his > about the right of animals to be given respect by humans, not to be > harmed or exploited for our purposes. The way he actualizes that > principle in his own life is via the familiar "vegan" formula, > attempting to eliminate the usual suspects, "animal products" from his > lifestyle. But this is barely a token measure, animal products account > for maybe a half dozen species of the tens of thousands that we harm > constantly, and must harm if we are to compete and thrive as a species > in the world. So where is this respect for "subjects-of-a-life"? It's > purely fantasy being perpetrated by a charismatic charlatan. Here you are talking about Regan's problems, not mine. I would imagine Regan has answers to these criticisms. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 5, 1:23 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2:12 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. > >>>>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of > >>>>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and > >>>>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if > >>>>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. > >>>>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. > >>>>>> And you call this a respectable position? > >>>>> Yup. > >>>> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals > >>>> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding > >>>> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage > >>>> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" > >>>> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have > >>>> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. > >>>>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a > >>> process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be > >>> if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in > >>> relevantly similar circumstances. > >> There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, > > > Irrelevant. > > What? It's the basis of your argument. > The fact that the hypothetical scenario does not occur in reailty is irrelevant to my argument. > >> so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do > >> live there? > > >>> I think that this requires > >>> boycotting most animal products, > >> Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in > >> the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. > > > In general, animal food products are much worse > > But we don't live our lives "in general" when we live according to > principles, we live according to specific actions which comply with > those principles. Avoiding animal products and doing nothing more, the > vegan formula, is a lie, it does not respect "subjects-of-a-life". > Make up your mind, are you attacking Regan's position or mine? If you're attacking Regan's position, I'll leave him to defend himself, it's not relevant to my position. > > and they're also much > > easier to avoid. > > Rice is easy to avoid. You're making the assumption that you have not > proven, that dividing food into animal products and non-animal products > is a valid expression of the principle expressed by Regan. > I never said any such thing. I'm not talking about Regan's theory. Yes, rice is easy to avoid. But I don't see any clear-cut evidence that it causes anywhere near as much harm as most animal products. > > There may be a case for boycotting some non-animal > > > products as well, yes. > > That's conveniently vague. If you are called upon to allow > "subject-of-a-life" animals to live their lives without your > interference then consuming commercially grown food and other > agricultural products like cotton and wool is certainly off limits. You > also better get ready to accommodate a lot of hungry rodents we > currently exterminate. > You're conveniently pretending that I'm aligning myself with Regan, when I'm not. Regan may or may not have answers to these challenges of yours. They do not bear on my position. > >>> not necessarily all. I don't believe > >>> that what I am doing is morally wrong. > >> Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd > >> live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? > > > Yes, if the level of difficulty in boycotting the products in question > > were similar. > > How difficult is to to boycott rice? > I don't eat that much rice, if I stopped eating rice the reduction in impact would be trivial. There isn't any reasonable measure I could take to significantly reduce my impact on animals short of becoming self-sufficient in food. > > > >> Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the > >> argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a > >> tap dance signifying nothing. > > Just like Regan, a lot of bluster and rhetoric without substance. It's easy enough to sling mud. You haven't made any cogent criticisms of my position. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:27 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? >>>>>>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being >>>>>>>>>> due equal consideration? >>>>>>>>> I directed you to a document >>>>>>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. >>>>>> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. >>>>> What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. >>>>> Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? >>>> Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that?- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> "Murderers and cannibals" is your spin on it. I have not used those >>> words. >> How does avoiding using the words make your insinuations any less insulting? >> > > I have offered an argument which is critical of what you do. I didn't see an argument, I saw a bunch of confused rhetoric ending up in a baseless accusation of immorality. > I've > considered the argument carefully and I think it deserves some > consideration. I've considered your words and find them to be confused rhetoric. > If you find my support for the argument insulting, > that's really not my problem. I find the support non-existent and the accusation presumptuous. > No reasonable person finds it insulting. You're not in a position to say what reasonable people are thinking. > You're welcome to try to engage with it rationally if you want to. I have engaged you rationally at every juncture, with little to show for it. >>> I've talked this over with my parents. They think I have every right >>> to express the position I do and have it seriously engaged with, and >>> be treated with basic courtesy. They think that you are mistaken that >>> I am not making a good faith effort at rational debate, and when you >>> say "decent people should pour scorn on you" they think you are a >>> nutcase. >> You've shown them some harsh words, not my arguments. You're their son, >> they don't want scorn heaped on their son. >> > > You're not offering any arguments at the moment, you're just being > abusive. They wouldn't alter their judgement of your current behaviour > if I were to show them the arguments you've offered on other > occasions. That's not relevant, of course you're entitled to offer > those arguments, but that has no bearing on the way you're behaving > now. Nor would they alter their judgement if it were someone other > than their son involved. They're reasonable people who think that > people are entitled to put forward arguments and propositions in good > faith without being abused. All reasonable adults would react that way > to the way you're carrying on at the moment: "What a nutcase." As you do regularly, you have sidetracked the discussion into a tedious complaint about the form of your opponents. You think I am a monster, then when I refer to you as a nutcase you go crying to your parents. > > >>> My parents' diet is similar to yours. They are middle-class people who >>> used to vote Labor, these days tend to vote Green. They work for the >>> Conservatorium of Music. My mother is a pianist and my father is an >>> academic. They are ordinary middle-class people, somewhat left-leaning >>> politically, with no particularly strong stand on animal issues. They >>> have listened to me discussing my position and they do not find it >>> offensive, although presumably they are not convinced. >> Presumably, you think? If you weren't their son, and our arguments were >> compared side-by-side, they would pick you as the nut case. > > Wrong. If it were just a question of the actual arguments we have > offered, they would think we have both made cases which are worthy of > some consideration, which is true. When it comes to your contention > that the simple fact that I have expressed my position means I have > forfeited my right to basic courtesy, that I am "not civilized", "not > worthy to call myself a human being", and "all decent people should > heap scorn on me", then of course they would think you were a nutcase > regardless of who was involved. Any reasonable, decent person would. You're not in a position to say what a reasonable decent person would do. Reasonable decent people don't think of good people as murderous cannibals. And you can wrap in a fancy paper and put a ribbon on it, but that's what it amounts to. >> I suspect >> that they are patronizing you, in more ways than one, because you're >> their son, and they know that you're harmless. > > Yes, I thought we might get some speculations from you about what my > parents really think of me. I didn't suggest that they think badly of you, they spoil you. How generous of you, now that Ball has > slunk away in humiliation, for you to don his clown suit in his > absence. I guarantee you his absence has nothing to do with humiliation. > > My parents think my position is a perfectly intellectually respectable > one and they think that I defend it in an articulate and interesting > manner. They have a lot of respect for the seriousness with which I > have engaged with the issue. But they think that you're wrong. Do you think that they have seriously considered the implications of what you're saying as I have? I know that they haven't. > So do all of my non-AR friends, which > certainly includes some very intelligent and well-educated people. So > does Malcolm France, the directory of Laboratory Animal Services at > the University of Sydney. How do you know anything except how the come across to you and how you interpret it? My experience with you is that you are incapable of seeing yourself as wrong about any of this. They sense that there's no point arguing with you. >> But if they were >> compelled to really engage with the implications of your words I think >> they would be offended. > > Groundless speculation. I have discussed this with them on my > occasions and they're not offended. No reasonable person would be > offended simply by someone putting forward this position for > consideration. Quite true, but not because it's an acceptable position, because they are not taking you seriously. Anyone who REALLY thinks about the implications of what people like you or Regan say, or just read some of the disgusting rhetoric, they WOULD be offended. The fact is people don't allow themselves to engage seriously with what you're saying as we are doing. They listen, nod politely, say "How interesting Rupert", then carry on as if you don't exist. It's a self-defense mechanism. > >> You are saying essentially that you find no >> difference between their diet and that of cannibals. >> >> > The impression >> >>> that they have formed of you is that you are a nutcase. They think >>> that you are the one that needs help. So there it is. I wonder what >>> everyone else thinks. >> Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. > > Yes, certainly, no doubt about that. I am very fortunate to have > parents like them and I am very grateful for everything they have done > for me. However, that's beside the point. I don't think it's beside the point at all. > There's no particular reason why they should say "We think that guy is > a nutcase" just because they're supportive loving parents. There's no > reason why they should express any view about any of the issues > discussed here at all just because they're supportive loving parents. > Being supportive loving parents would just involve them saying "Well, > you're entitled to your view and he's entitled to his, and you can > engage with him if you like, but you don't have to engage with him if > you don't want to." They're saying they think you're a nutcase because > they do, based on the facts which I have presented to them about you. > Most reasonable adults would draw that conclusion. There you go, Mr. less than 1% minority thinks were a bunch of cannibals telling me what reasonable people think. > >> Perhaps they should have >> tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you >> seem like a spoiled brat. > > Would you care to elaborate on what has led you to that conclusion? Your absolute inability to admit the slightest imperfection or error. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:27 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. Perhaps they should have >> tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you >> seem like a spoiled brat. > > You know, Dutch, I really marvel that you feel that you are in a > position to talk to me like that when you are on the public record as > having lied about whether you have kids or not. My parents brought me > up better than that, I can assure you. I'm not going to get into the details of that, it's not what it seems, and immaterial. I didn't call you dishonest anyway, I said that you act spoiled. You do. I've never seen a person in my life that has to be so damned RIGHT about every little detail. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:13 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 2:02 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: >>>> [..] >>>>>>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. >>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. >>>>>> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you >>>>>> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. >>>>> That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers >>>>> acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate >>>>> deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take >>>>> similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the >>>>> other. >>>> What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that >>>> humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical >>>> research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers >>>> like you. >>> Here you're just flying in the face of the plain facts. >> The number of serious academics, scientists and philosophers who >> subscribe to the notion of Animal Rights is tiny, probably smaller than >> the proportion of animal rights adherents in the general population, >> which is a fraction of a percent. It's simply not a serious idea. That's >> not to say it's irrelevant, to the extent that ARAs occupy positions of >> power or activists resort to various forms of violence it becomes a >> serious concern. >> > > Incorrect. The number of academics who subscribe to animal liberation > or animal rights is much *larger* than the proportion of animal rights > adherents in the general population, and *everyone* acknowledges it as > a serious idea that needs to be engaged with. Animal rights and animal > liberation are acknolwedged in academia as serious ideas. Delusion. >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm >>>>>>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make >>>>>>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself >>>>>>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. >>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". >>>>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. >>>>>>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. >>>>>>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that >>>>>>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. >>>>>> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" >>>>>> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end >>>>>> hangout for a few deluded fools. >>>>> Where do you draw the line? >>>> I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very >>>> way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that >>>> non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a >>>> insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like >>>> "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of >>>> credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. >>>>> I'd be happy to have my position >>>>> categorized as a "new welfarist" position. >>>> If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten >>>> fruit inside. >>>>> Just what exactly is it >>>>> about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? >>>> A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer >>>> is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, >>>> to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be >>>> coherent to yourself and if possible to others. >>> Nonsense. There's no good reason why my position is any less credible >>> than yours. >> Yes there is, my goals are attainable, they relate to the real world, > > So are mine. No they're not. The specific goals that are attainable, the ones you follow, are just token measures, they don't validate a belief in "equal consideration" or "Animal Rights". >> "Animal Rights" proposes a philosophical model which bears no relation >> to the real world. Regan waxes eloquently in those lilting tones of his >> about the right of animals to be given respect by humans, not to be >> harmed or exploited for our purposes. The way he actualizes that >> principle in his own life is via the familiar "vegan" formula, >> attempting to eliminate the usual suspects, "animal products" from his >> lifestyle. But this is barely a token measure, animal products account >> for maybe a half dozen species of the tens of thousands that we harm >> constantly, and must harm if we are to compete and thrive as a species >> in the world. So where is this respect for "subjects-of-a-life"? It's >> purely fantasy being perpetrated by a charismatic charlatan. > > Here you are talking about Regan's problems, not mine. You're faced with those same questions, for which "veganism" has no answers. I would imagine > Regan has answers to these criticisms. Oh I don't doubt it one bit. He'd begin by insulting my intelligence and telling me to read his books. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:23 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Aug 4, 2:12 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. >>>>>>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of >>>>>>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and >>>>>>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if >>>>>>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. >>>>>>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. >>>>>>>> And you call this a respectable position? >>>>>>> Yup. >>>>>> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals >>>>>> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding >>>>>> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage >>>>>> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" >>>>>> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have >>>>>> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. >>>>>>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a >>>>> process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be >>>>> if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in >>>>> relevantly similar circumstances. >>>> There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, >>> Irrelevant. >> What? It's the basis of your argument. >> > > The fact that the hypothetical scenario does not occur in reailty is > irrelevant to my argument. Your scenario to have value must at least be plausible, otherwise the argument isn't plausible. >>>> so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do >>>> live there? >>>>> I think that this requires >>>>> boycotting most animal products, >>>> Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in >>>> the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. >>> In general, animal food products are much worse >> But we don't live our lives "in general" when we live according to >> principles, we live according to specific actions which comply with >> those principles. Avoiding animal products and doing nothing more, the >> vegan formula, is a lie, it does not respect "subjects-of-a-life". >> > > Make up your mind, are you attacking Regan's position or mine? If > you're attacking Regan's position, I'll leave him to defend himself, > it's not relevant to my position. It's just veganism, I thought you subscribed to that. > >>> and they're also much >>> easier to avoid. >> Rice is easy to avoid. You're making the assumption that you have not >> proven, that dividing food into animal products and non-animal products >> is a valid expression of the principle expressed by Regan. >> > > I never said any such thing. It's implied in your statement about boycotting animal products. > I'm not talking about Regan's theory. Good, because it's incoherent too. > Yes, rice is easy to avoid. But I don't see any clear-cut evidence > that it causes anywhere near as much harm as most animal products. You have no clear-cut evidence either way, certainly not that most rice causes more harm than selectively chosen meat. >> > There may be a case for boycotting some non-animal >> >>> products as well, yes. >> That's conveniently vague. If you are called upon to allow >> "subject-of-a-life" animals to live their lives without your >> interference then consuming commercially grown food and other >> agricultural products like cotton and wool is certainly off limits. You >> also better get ready to accommodate a lot of hungry rodents we >> currently exterminate. >> > > You're conveniently pretending that I'm aligning myself with Regan, > when I'm not. Regan may or may not have answers to these challenges of > yours. They do not bear on my position. You're conveniently not taking a position that you can be pinned down on. >>>>> not necessarily all. I don't believe >>>>> that what I am doing is morally wrong. >>>> Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd >>>> live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? >>> Yes, if the level of difficulty in boycotting the products in question >>> were similar. >> How difficult is to to boycott rice? >> > > I don't eat that much rice, if I stopped eating rice the reduction in > impact would be trivial. There isn't any reasonable measure I could > take to significantly reduce my impact on animals short of becoming > self-sufficient in food. You don't know that, you have haven't considered anything other than eliminating animal products. > >> >>>> Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the >>>> argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a >>>> tap dance signifying nothing. >> Just like Regan, a lot of bluster and rhetoric without substance. > > It's easy enough to sling mud. That wasn't mud, it was a cogent criticism. You haven't made any cogent criticisms > of my position. > That's hilarious. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no... > >> pearl wrote: > >>> "Dutch" > wrote > >>> > >>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end >> > >>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves. > >>> > >> Palpable nonsense. > > > > What? > > > > > The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy > theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else > actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the > colloquial. The "whole thing" is true. You saying it is not is just worthless denial. Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even you. At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern", dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 5, 3:41 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 5, 1:13 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 2:02 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 4, 5:58 am, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> [..] > >>>>>>>> Respected thinkers don't take animal rights seriously. > >>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. > >>>>>> Yes I do. There is no legitimate thinker who takes people like you > >>>>>> seriously. They sometimes listen politely, but they shouldn't. > >>>>> That's just ignorant, I'm afraid. All academic philosophers > >>>>> acknowledge that Singer's and Regan's contributions to the debate > >>>>> deserve to be taken seriously, and plenty of respected thinkers take > >>>>> similar positions. You wouldn't know anything about it one way or the > >>>>> other. > >>>> What debate? There is no serious debate going on which suggests that > >>>> humans cannot use animals as food or as subjects for critical medical > >>>> research, none whatsoever, except among a few woolly-headed navel-gazers > >>>> like you. > >>> Here you're just flying in the face of the plain facts. > >> The number of serious academics, scientists and philosophers who > >> subscribe to the notion of Animal Rights is tiny, probably smaller than > >> the proportion of animal rights adherents in the general population, > >> which is a fraction of a percent. It's simply not a serious idea. That's > >> not to say it's irrelevant, to the extent that ARAs occupy positions of > >> power or activists resort to various forms of violence it becomes a > >> serious concern. > > > Incorrect. The number of academics who subscribe to animal liberation > > or animal rights is much *larger* than the proportion of animal rights > > adherents in the general population, and *everyone* acknowledges it as > > a serious idea that needs to be engaged with. Animal rights and animal > > liberation are acknolwedged in academia as serious ideas. > > Delusion. > To think otherwise is just ignorance. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that because I express it I'm > >>>>>>>>>>> "not worthy to call myself a human being" is a joke. You want to make > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like that in public, fine, but you're only making yourself > >>>>>>>>>>> a laughing-stock amongst people with a modicum of rationality. > >>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a modicum of rationality subscribes to "AR". > >>>>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about. You're a joke. > >>>>>>>> I know very well what I'm talking about. > >>>>>>> No, I'm afraid not. You really don't have a clue. You're assuming that > >>>>>>> everyone is a bigoted fool like you. That's not the case. > >>>>>> I'm not assuming anything. There is no legitimate endeavor with an "AR" > >>>>>> component. Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end > >>>>>> hangout for a few deluded fools. > >>>>> Where do you draw the line? > >>>> I draw the line between AR and AW. AR is an attempt to redefine the very > >>>> way of life of the human race based on the misguided notion that > >>>> non-humans morally fall into the same class of beings as humans. It's a > >>>> insidious idea that has you hooked right in. It uses terms like > >>>> "speciesism" and arguments like the AMC to achieve the illusion of > >>>> credibility. AW is a response to the recognition of the needs of animals. > >>>>> I'd be happy to have my position > >>>>> categorized as a "new welfarist" position. > >>>> If you switch the label on a can of rotten fruit it's still got rotten > >>>> fruit inside. > >>>>> Just what exactly is it > >>>>> about my position that makes it a position for "deluded fools"? > >>>> A person could write a book in answer to that question. The short answer > >>>> is that in order to support the idea you are forced to delude yourself, > >>>> to give over control of your reason to make the idea appear to be > >>>> coherent to yourself and if possible to others. > >>> Nonsense. There's no good reason why my position is any less credible > >>> than yours. > >> Yes there is, my goals are attainable, they relate to the real world, > > > So are mine. > > No they're not. The specific goals that are attainable, the ones you > follow, are just token measures, they don't validate a belief in "equal > consideration" or "Animal Rights". > My behaviour and the goals that I advocate are consistent with equal consideration. > >> "Animal Rights" proposes a philosophical model which bears no relation > >> to the real world. Regan waxes eloquently in those lilting tones of his > >> about the right of animals to be given respect by humans, not to be > >> harmed or exploited for our purposes. The way he actualizes that > >> principle in his own life is via the familiar "vegan" formula, > >> attempting to eliminate the usual suspects, "animal products" from his > >> lifestyle. But this is barely a token measure, animal products account > >> for maybe a half dozen species of the tens of thousands that we harm > >> constantly, and must harm if we are to compete and thrive as a species > >> in the world. So where is this respect for "subjects-of-a-life"? It's > >> purely fantasy being perpetrated by a charismatic charlatan. > > > Here you are talking about Regan's problems, not mine. > > You're faced with those same questions, for which "veganism" has no answers. > > I would imagine > > > Regan has answers to these criticisms. > > Oh I don't doubt it one bit. He'd begin by insulting my intelligence and > telling me to read his books.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 5, 3:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 5, 1:23 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 2:12 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 4, 6:11 am, Dutch > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 8:30 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I'm not calling anyone a murderer. > >>>>>>>> You're claiming that cows have the same moral status as humans of > >>>>>>>> similar intelligence. Therefore according to you if I support and > >>>>>>>> condone the killing of cows to eat it is actually morally the same as if > >>>>>>>> I killed a retarded human to eat him. > >>>>>>>> So you're not only calling me a murderer, you're calling me a cannibal. > >>>>>>>> And you call this a respectable position? > >>>>>>> Yup. > >>>>>> Yet you yourself implicitly support the unnecessary killing of animals > >>>>>> to sponsor your own comfortable lifestyle. Instead of responding > >>>>>> substantively to this accusation you dismiss it with vague verbiage > >>>>>> like, I'm not convinced that it is..blah blah" > >>>>>> You have not only forfeited any right to civil discussion, you have > >>>>>> abandoned your intellectual integrity along with your moral compass. > >>>>>>>> You're one sick ****.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>> I've been through this quite a few times. If you financially support a > >>>>> process that harms sentient beings, then it is the same as it would be > >>>>> if the victims were humans with similar cognitive capacities in > >>>>> relevantly similar circumstances. > >>>> There *are* no marginal humans living in farmer's fields or grain silos, > >>> Irrelevant. > >> What? It's the basis of your argument. > > > The fact that the hypothetical scenario does not occur in reailty is > > irrelevant to my argument. > > Your scenario to have value must at least be plausible, otherwise the > argument isn't plausible. > No, highly counterfactual thought-experiments can still be useful. > > > > > >>>> so how does this relate to the animal victims of our lifestyles which do > >>>> live there? > >>>>> I think that this requires > >>>>> boycotting most animal products, > >>>> Why specifically animal products? Cotton is one the most deadly crops in > >>>> the world, rice, grain, and fruit crops are not far behind. > >>> In general, animal food products are much worse > >> But we don't live our lives "in general" when we live according to > >> principles, we live according to specific actions which comply with > >> those principles. Avoiding animal products and doing nothing more, the > >> vegan formula, is a lie, it does not respect "subjects-of-a-life". > > > Make up your mind, are you attacking Regan's position or mine? If > > you're attacking Regan's position, I'll leave him to defend himself, > > it's not relevant to my position. > > It's just veganism, I thought you subscribed to that. > I've told you what I think often enough. If you still don't get it, too bad. > > > >>> and they're also much > >>> easier to avoid. > >> Rice is easy to avoid. You're making the assumption that you have not > >> proven, that dividing food into animal products and non-animal products > >> is a valid expression of the principle expressed by Regan. > > > I never said any such thing. > > It's implied in your statement about boycotting animal products. > No. > > I'm not talking about Regan's theory. > > Good, because it's incoherent too. > > > Yes, rice is easy to avoid. But I don't see any clear-cut evidence > > that it causes anywhere near as much harm as most animal products. > > You have no clear-cut evidence either way, certainly not that most rice > causes more harm than selectively chosen meat. > I am making every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. > >> > There may be a case for boycotting some non-animal > > >>> products as well, yes. > >> That's conveniently vague. If you are called upon to allow > >> "subject-of-a-life" animals to live their lives without your > >> interference then consuming commercially grown food and other > >> agricultural products like cotton and wool is certainly off limits. You > >> also better get ready to accommodate a lot of hungry rodents we > >> currently exterminate. > > > You're conveniently pretending that I'm aligning myself with Regan, > > when I'm not. Regan may or may not have answers to these challenges of > > yours. They do not bear on my position. > > You're conveniently not taking a position that you can be pinned down on. > No. I've told you what I think often enough. > >>>>> not necessarily all. I don't believe > >>>>> that what I am doing is morally wrong. > >>>> Even though your lifestyle kills sentient beings? Is that because you'd > >>>> live the same way even if there were retarded people being poisoned? > >>> Yes, if the level of difficulty in boycotting the products in question > >>> were similar. > >> How difficult is to to boycott rice? > > > I don't eat that much rice, if I stopped eating rice the reduction in > > impact would be trivial. There isn't any reasonable measure I could > > take to significantly reduce my impact on animals short of becoming > > self-sufficient in food. > > You don't know that, I've made some effort to find out, and I've got a pretty good idea. > you have haven't considered anything other than > eliminating animal products. > Yes I have, and I'm still looking into it. I see no evidence that there are any ways to make significant improvements short of becoming self-sufficient in food. > > > >>>> Sorry, the connection between your lifestyle and your restatement of the > >>>> argument from marginal cases is difficult to parse. It comes across as a > >>>> tap dance signifying nothing. > >> Just like Regan, a lot of bluster and rhetoric without substance. > > > It's easy enough to sling mud. > > That wasn't mud, it was a cogent criticism. > No, it was just empty abuse. > You haven't made any cogent criticisms > > > of my position. > > That's hilarious. Well, if you've made them where are they? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 5, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2:27 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Aug 4, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 3, 8:24 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk? > >>>>>>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being > >>>>>>>>>> due equal consideration? > >>>>>>>>> I directed you to a document > >>>>>>>> Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.- Hide quoted text - > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>> Engage with the arguments in my talk. > >>>>>> Post your "talk" here, nitwit. > >>>>> What on earth for? It's too long, anyway. > >>>>> Didn't your mother ever teach you to speak politely to people? > >>>> Like calling them murderers and cannibals? Did your mom teach you that?- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> "Murderers and cannibals" is your spin on it. I have not used those > >>> words. > >> How does avoiding using the words make your insinuations any less insulting? > > > I have offered an argument which is critical of what you do. > > I didn't see an argument, I saw a bunch of confused rhetoric ending up > in a baseless accusation of immorality. > Well, that's that then. > > I've > > considered the argument carefully and I think it deserves some > > consideration. > > I've considered your words and find them to be confused rhetoric. > Fine. I guess the only thing you've got to consider now is whether you want to bother convincing me of the vaildity of that assessment of yours. > > If you find my support for the argument insulting, > > that's really not my problem. > > I find the support non-existent and the accusation presumptuous. > Jolly good. > > No reasonable person finds it insulting. > > You're not in a position to say what reasonable people are thinking. > Yes, I am. I'm in a much better position than you to know what reasonable people think. > > You're welcome to try to engage with it rationally if you want to. > > I have engaged you rationally at every juncture, with little to show for it. > Not very often. Most of the time you've just been abusive. You've made some effort at rational argument, but your attempts have been weak. > > > > > >>> I've talked this over with my parents. They think I have every right > >>> to express the position I do and have it seriously engaged with, and > >>> be treated with basic courtesy. They think that you are mistaken that > >>> I am not making a good faith effort at rational debate, and when you > >>> say "decent people should pour scorn on you" they think you are a > >>> nutcase. > >> You've shown them some harsh words, not my arguments. You're their son, > >> they don't want scorn heaped on their son. > > > You're not offering any arguments at the moment, you're just being > > abusive. They wouldn't alter their judgement of your current behaviour > > if I were to show them the arguments you've offered on other > > occasions. That's not relevant, of course you're entitled to offer > > those arguments, but that has no bearing on the way you're behaving > > now. Nor would they alter their judgement if it were someone other > > than their son involved. They're reasonable people who think that > > people are entitled to put forward arguments and propositions in good > > faith without being abused. All reasonable adults would react that way > > to the way you're carrying on at the moment: "What a nutcase." > > As you do regularly, you have sidetracked the discussion into a tedious > complaint about the form of your opponents. Pfffft. *I'm* the one sidetracking the discussion? You've been spending the last few posts telling me what a pitiful excuse for a human being I am. > You think I am a monster, I've told you I don't think that. > then when I refer to you as a nutcase you go crying to your parents. > You really are an offensive twit. I don't need my parents' support to deal with you. The purpose of that exercise was to give you some feedback on how rational people view this nonsense of yours. > > > > > > > >>> My parents' diet is similar to yours. They are middle-class people who > >>> used to vote Labor, these days tend to vote Green. They work for the > >>> Conservatorium of Music. My mother is a pianist and my father is an > >>> academic. They are ordinary middle-class people, somewhat left-leaning > >>> politically, with no particularly strong stand on animal issues. They > >>> have listened to me discussing my position and they do not find it > >>> offensive, although presumably they are not convinced. > >> Presumably, you think? If you weren't their son, and our arguments were > >> compared side-by-side, they would pick you as the nut case. > > > Wrong. If it were just a question of the actual arguments we have > > offered, they would think we have both made cases which are worthy of > > some consideration, which is true. When it comes to your contention > > that the simple fact that I have expressed my position means I have > > forfeited my right to basic courtesy, that I am "not civilized", "not > > worthy to call myself a human being", and "all decent people should > > heap scorn on me", then of course they would think you were a nutcase > > regardless of who was involved. Any reasonable, decent person would. > > You're not in a position to say what a reasonable decent person would > do. Reasonable decent people don't think of good people as murderous > cannibals. And you can wrap in a fancy paper and put a ribbon on it, but > that's what it amounts to. > Yawn. > >> I suspect > >> that they are patronizing you, in more ways than one, because you're > >> their son, and they know that you're harmless. > > > Yes, I thought we might get some speculations from you about what my > > parents really think of me. > > I didn't suggest that they think badly of you, they spoil you. > What would you know about it, you ignorant twit? > How generous of you, now that Ball has > > > slunk away in humiliation, for you to don his clown suit in his > > absence. > > I guarantee you his absence has nothing to do with humiliation. > Interesting conjecture. > > > > My parents think my position is a perfectly intellectually respectable > > one and they think that I defend it in an articulate and interesting > > manner. They have a lot of respect for the seriousness with which I > > have engaged with the issue. > > But they think that you're wrong. Do you think that they have seriously > considered the implications of what you're saying as I have? I know that > they haven't. > I spelled it out for them, in order to explain why you find me offensive. > > So do all of my non-AR friends, which > > certainly includes some very intelligent and well-educated people. So > > does Malcolm France, the directory of Laboratory Animal Services at > > the University of Sydney. > > How do you know anything except how the come across to you and how you > interpret it? My experience with you is that you are incapable of seeing > yourself as wrong about any of this. They sense that there's no point > arguing with you. > I've got much less of a problem with giving a fair hearing to criticisms of my position than you do. > >> But if they were > >> compelled to really engage with the implications of your words I think > >> they would be offended. > > > Groundless speculation. I have discussed this with them on my > > occasions and they're not offended. No reasonable person would be > > offended simply by someone putting forward this position for > > consideration. > > Quite true, but not because it's an acceptable position, because they > are not taking you seriously. That's just not true. You wouldn't know what you're talking about. They listen to what I have to say, they think it's interesting and they take it seriously. > Anyone who REALLY thinks about the > implications of what people like you or Regan say, or just read some of > the disgusting rhetoric, they WOULD be offended. The fact is people > don't allow themselves to engage seriously with what you're saying as we > are doing. They listen, nod politely, say "How interesting Rupert", then > carry on as if you don't exist. It's a self-defense mechanism. > Wrong. Lots of people engage seriously with what I'm saying. Malcolm France came along to our animal ethics reading group because he was interested. The research students I talk to give me lots of feedback, they come up and talk to me afterwards. My parents gave me feedback about my talk. You needn't kid yourselves that you're the only people who bother to engage seriously with these ideas. The difference is that you don't seem to be able to do it in a civil fashion. > > > >> You are saying essentially that you find no > >> difference between their diet and that of cannibals. > > >> > The impression > > >>> that they have formed of you is that you are a nutcase. They think > >>> that you are the one that needs help. So there it is. I wonder what > >>> everyone else thinks. > >> Yes, there it is, supportive loving parents. > > > Yes, certainly, no doubt about that. I am very fortunate to have > > parents like them and I am very grateful for everything they have done > > for me. However, that's beside the point. > > I don't think it's beside the point at all. > > > There's no particular reason why they should say "We think that guy is > > a nutcase" just because they're supportive loving parents. There's no > > reason why they should express any view about any of the issues > > discussed here at all just because they're supportive loving parents. > > Being supportive loving parents would just involve them saying "Well, > > you're entitled to your view and he's entitled to his, and you can > > engage with him if you like, but you don't have to engage with him if > > you don't want to." They're saying they think you're a nutcase because > > they do, based on the facts which I have presented to them about you. > > Most reasonable adults would draw that conclusion. > > There you go, Mr. less than 1% minority thinks were a bunch of cannibals > telling me what reasonable people think. > I tell you I have a much better idea of what reasonable people would think about this particular issue than you do. *Everyone* I talk with about the people on this newsgroup says, "What a bunch of ratbags. Why can't they just engage with the ideas, instead of engaging in personal abuse? It must be because they feel threatened by you somehow." And they're right. > > > >> Perhaps they should have > >> tanned your bottom a little more often when you were a young lad, you > >> seem like a spoiled brat. > > > Would you care to elaborate on what has led you to that conclusion? > > Your absolute inability to admit the slightest imperfection or error. Well, that's rubbish. I've certainly got plenty of imperfections, it's just that I choose not to discuss them here, because they're none of your business. I will admit error in my position when you convince me that there are rational grounds for thinking it to be in error. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter