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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2007, 08:42 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2007, 08:52 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.




Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?

****! ................are you ever stupid.

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2007, 09:08 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2007, 09:57 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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 you have no inheirent common sense.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-07-2007, 11:31 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.




Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?

****! ................are you ever stupid.


Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration", we couldn't if we
wanted to, and nobody actually wants to, despite their irrational pleas
to the contrary. What we do is select a few animals to give special
consideration. It's what we have always done and what we will continue
to do.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 12:13 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
called "animal rights talk.doc" he

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/

Tell me exactly what's wrong with it. I'll publish your response on my
website if you like. We can get some sort of webbed debate going.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 12:44 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.


Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?


****! ................are you ever stupid.


Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",


I do.



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 01:58 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
called "animal rights talk.doc" he


Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:09 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch wrote:
shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
****! ................are you ever stupid.

Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",


I do.


No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
would appear.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:26 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
called "animal rights talk.doc" he


Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?


He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia. The
book is the the most tangled bunch of hogwash I have ever had the
misfortune to encounter. The entire book is a circular effort to define
"Equal Consideration" in such a way that it shifts the burden to
opponents to disprove it. Rupert will never justify his position, he
knows intuitively that he can't, that's why he is attracted to DeGrazia.
Strange that it never occurs to him that the assertion is flawed.

In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
thinks is poorly defined and disregards the whole essay on that basis.
DeGrazia's book is loaded with poorly defined concepts, as he admits
himself, yet Rupert eats in up like salted popcorn.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 06:22 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 07:50 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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


I do.


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


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

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 07:51 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 10:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert wrote:

On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
called "animal rights talk.doc" he


Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?


What do you suppose that talk is? Have you read it?

That talk is a lecture I gave recently at the University of Sydney to
a group of students who were about to embark on animal research
projects. You are welcome to have a go at engaging with the arguments
in it if you feel like it.

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 07:52 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

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


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


You contribute to animal death.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 08:01 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
called "animal rights talk.doc" he


Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?


He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
suggestion.


That's true, and I'm certainly happy to talk over Chapter 3 of "Taking
Animals Seriously" with Ball if he wants to. However, I did actually
refer him to a lecture I gave, for payment, recently, in defence of my
position. That was what I was hoping he might engage with. Rather odd
that he missed that.

I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia. The
book is the the most tangled bunch of hogwash I have ever had the
misfortune to encounter. The entire book is a circular effort to define
"Equal Consideration" in such a way that it shifts the burden to
opponents to disprove it. Rupert will never justify his position, he
knows intuitively that he can't, that's why he is attracted to DeGrazia.
Strange that it never occurs to him that the assertion is flawed.


I'm sorry you didn't like DeGrazia. I think he's quite a clear and
insightful writer, myself. It would be nice if you could actually
engage with what he wrote and try to offer some cogent criticisms.

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


It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. He
doesn't even make a start. Until he makes a start, we've got nothing.
He himself would acknowledge this point, I'm quite sure. He would
acknowledge that by itself the essay is not a satisfactory rebuttal of
the argument from marginal cases, that further clarification of the
crucial concept of "capability" is required.

and disregards the whole essay on that basis.


No, I think parts of the essay are quite interesting, and I'm
particularly interested in the discussion of moral methodology.
Furthermore, I am interested in the attempted rebuttal of the argument
from marginal cases and will follow it up further, looking at the
thesis to which he refers. But the section which attempts to rebut the
argument from marginal cases is what you've been focussing on, and
it's quite short, and it crucially rests on the notion of
"capability", which is introduced in one very short paragraph, which
is not an adequate explanation. This section of the essay is a non-
starter until we've got an explanation of the crucial notion of
"capability".

DeGrazia's book is loaded with poorly defined concepts,


No. This is pretty rich when you are so excited about an essay which
does not make the least attempt at defining the crucial notion of
"capability".

as he admits
himself,


No, he does not.

yet Rupert eats in up like salted popcorn.


It's not just me who thinks DeGrazia has something interesting to say.
He's a well-respected bioethicist. There are quite a lot of
professional academics who think this is good philosophy. I'm sure
they've made just as much of a good faith effort to think about the
matter critically as you have, and I see no reason to think that their
critical faculties are any less than yours. They might be wrong, but
are you really in a position to say that quite so confidently?
Shouldn't be somewhat more open to the possibility that it might be
you who's underestimating the quality of DeGrazia's work? Surely it's
at least a possibility? Or are you infallible, are you?



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 08:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 06:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 10:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017