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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
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?



  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>> I do.
> >> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >> would appear.

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

>
> You contribute to animal death.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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. Lots of people think it's not
self-evidently false. A huge majority of those who seriously consider
the matter, I would say. Surely you've got to say something more to
those people than just asserting that it is self-evidently false.

God, this habit of yours of changing the follow-up is tiresome.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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 never treat
> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
> circumstances.
>


Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:


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

>
> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.


He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
non-operative due to disability.

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing. It is crystal clear. You're in a corner with no way out except
to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
the argument from marginal cases. You might disagree with the overall
approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. That argument always
sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
rigorous form.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>> I do.
> >> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >> would appear.

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

>
> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, but that's
the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
notion of "equal consideration" in that context.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
> >> thinks is poorly defined

>
> > It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
> > nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.

>
> He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
> is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
> yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
> to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
> advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
> non-operative due to disability.
>


What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't. I guess you're
somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
the ability in normal contexts is all there. You might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet. As I said before, that's a scientific research programme,
not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be
there? How far is it allowed to be from being in working order? And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?

> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
> nothing.


Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
capability consists in.

> It is crystal clear.


If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
standards of clarity.

> You're in a corner with no way out except
> to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
> the argument from marginal cases.


Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were
bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in
a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No-
one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently
tried to explain how I understood the text to you.

You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you
have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of
"capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic
philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the
author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth
off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay
you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think
it's going to impress any other sensible person either.

> You might disagree with the overall
> approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
> animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
> ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases.


I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I
understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally
obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the
argument from marginal cases.

> That argument always
> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
> rigorous form.


Well, you can think that if you like. Suppose you were writing an
essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but
who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about
explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really
think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you
think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and
rigor which prevail in academic philosophy.

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>> I do.
>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>> would appear.
>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah

>> You contribute to animal death.

>
> Yes.


You violate your so-called beliefs. Yes.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>> I do.
> >>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>> would appear.
> >>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >> You contribute to animal death.

>
> > Yes.

>
> You violate your so-called beliefs.


No.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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 talk of mine to which I directed you says quite a
lot in defence of my beliefs. I certainly do a lot more than just say
"it's self-evidently true". Why don't you read my talk and give me
your comments?



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>>>> would appear.
>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
>>>> You contribute to animal death.
>>> Yes.

>> You violate your so-called beliefs.

>
> No.


Yes - daily.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> >>>>>> false.
> >>>>> More proof that
> >>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> >>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
> >>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
> >>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
> >>> equally be criticized on that basis.
> >> I'm just following your lead.

>
> > I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you

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


So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
talk?

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>> Yes.
> >> You violate your so-called beliefs.

>
> > No.

>
> Yes - daily.


No, I don't, Ball. My actions are in accordance with my beliefs as I
have stated them.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> >>>>>> false.
> >>>>> More proof that
> >>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> >>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
> >>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
> >>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
> >>> equally be criticized on that basis.
> >> I'm just following your lead.

>
> > I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you

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


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 and you pretend
to fall asleep. So, were you not really being serious in issuing the
challenge? I don't think you've actually read the talk, have you?



  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>>>>>> would appear.
>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
>>> No.

>> Yes - daily.

>
> No, I don't


Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>> More proof that
>>>>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
>>>>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
>>>>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
>>>>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
>>>>> equally be criticized on that basis.
>>>> I'm just following your lead.
>>> I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you

>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>

>
> I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
> I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence


Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>> I do.
>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>> would appear.
>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
>>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
>>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
>>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
>>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
>>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
>>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
>>> circumstances.

>> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
>> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario,


Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?

but that's
> the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
> notion of "equal consideration" in that context.


I don't want to talk about it, I want YOU to give an example that might
occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
>>>> thinks is poorly defined
>>> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
>>> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.

>> He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
>> is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
>> yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
>> to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
>> advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
>> non-operative due to disability.
>>

>
> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.


Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly? Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.

> I guess you're
> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
> the ability in normal contexts is all there.


You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.

> You might be able to give
> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
> that yet.


Every example I have given does it.

> As I said before, that's a scientific research programme,
> not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be
> there?


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

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


That doesn't matter.

> And,
> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
> machinery being there?


The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.


>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
>> nothing.

>
> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
> capability consists in.


The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.

>> It is crystal clear.

>
> If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
> standards of clarity.


Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking.

>
>> You're in a corner with no way out except
>> to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
>> the argument from marginal cases.

>
> Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were
> bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in
> a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No-
> one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently
> tried to explain how I understood the text to you.
>
> You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you
> have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of
> "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic
> philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the
> author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth
> off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay
> you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think
> it's going to impress any other sensible person either.
>
>> You might disagree with the overall
>> approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
>> animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
>> ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases.

>
> I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I
> understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally
> obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the
> argument from marginal cases.
>
>> That argument always
>> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
>> rigorous form.

>
> Well, you can think that if you like.


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

Suppose you were writing an
> essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but
> who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about
> explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really
> think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you
> think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and
> rigor which prevail in academic philosophy.


I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the
professor lecturing the rest of us, but get over yourself. If I had a
professor like you I would attempt to switch classes.

  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 9:24 am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> > >>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> > >>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> > >>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> > >>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> > >>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> > >>>>>> false.
> > >>>>> More proof that
> > >>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> > >>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
> > >>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
> > >>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
> > >>> equally be criticized on that basis.
> > >> I'm just following your lead.

>
> > > I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you

>
> > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
> talk?





You're kidding, right?

Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.

Only Goo is wise.

Only Goo knows.








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





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 28, 1:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
> >>>> thinks is poorly defined
> >>> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
> >>> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given.
> >> He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that
> >> is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not
> >> yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability
> >> to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of
> >> advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is
> >> non-operative due to disability.

>
> > What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> > the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> > obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.

>
> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly? Do you
> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. None of the abilities an
> ape displays are evident in young apes.
>
> > I guess you're
> > somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
> > the ability in normal contexts is all there.

>
> You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
>
> > You might be able to give
> > that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
> > that yet.

>
> Every example I have given does it.
>
> > As I said before, that's a scientific research programme,
> > not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be
> > there?

>
> It's not "machinery" in the literal sense. This is hilarious you know,
> your declaration of the "equal consideration principle" is about as
> vague as one can possibly be, with no examples from real life being
> given at all to clarify it, yet you proclaim it to be clear as a bell.
> This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number
> of clarifying examples, yet you reject it.
>
> > How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?

>
> That doesn't matter.
>
> > And,
> > anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
> > machinery being there?

>
> The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
> be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
> no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
> sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
> it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
> own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
>
> >> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
> >> nothing.

>
> > Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
> > capability consists in.

>
> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
> observation. The primary clue is species.
>
> >> It is crystal clear.

>
> > If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your
> > standards of clarity.

>
> Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You're in a corner with no way out except
> >> to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of
> >> the argument from marginal cases.

>
> > Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were
> > bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in
> > a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No-
> > one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently
> > tried to explain how I understood the text to you.

>
> > You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you
> > have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of
> > "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic
> > philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the
> > author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth
> > off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay
> > you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think
> > it's going to impress any other sensible person either.

>
> >> You might disagree with the overall
> >> approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat
> >> animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you
> >> ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases.

>
> > I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I
> > understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally
> > obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the
> > argument from marginal cases.

>
> >> That argument always
> >> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in
> >> rigorous form.

>
> > Well, you can think that if you like.

>
> Thanks for the permission to think what I want to think.
>
> Suppose you were writing an
>
> > essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but
> > who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about
> > explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really
> > think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you
> > think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and
> > rigor which prevail in academic philosophy.

>
> I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the
> professor lecturing the rest of us, but get over yourself. If I had a
> professor like you I would attempt to switch classes.





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







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



  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> >>>>>>>> false.
> >>>>>>> More proof that
> >>>>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> >>>>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
> >>>>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
> >>>>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
> >>>>> equally be criticized on that basis.
> >>>> I'm just following your lead.
> >>> I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>
> > I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
> > I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence

>
> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.

So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.

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

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes - daily.

>
> > No, I don't

>
> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.


Yawn.

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

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

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>> I do.
> >>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>> would appear.
> >>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
> >>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
> >>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
> >>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
> >>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
> >>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
> >>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
> >>> circumstances.
> >> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
> >> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario,

>
> Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?
>


This is your idea of serious discussion, is it?

> but that's
>
> > the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
> > notion of "equal consideration" in that context.

>
> I don't want to talk about it,


Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time.

> I want YOU to give an example that might
> occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
> can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
> coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.


I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can
only give you highly counterfactual examples. I've done that. Yes, I
would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be
too.

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>>>> would appear.
>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
>>>>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
>>>>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
>>>>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
>>>>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
>>>>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
>>>>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
>>>>> circumstances.
>>>> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
>>>> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario,

>> Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?
>>

>
> This is your idea of serious discussion, is it?


counterfactual. A conditional statement whose antecedent is known (or,
at least, believed) to be contrary to fact.

What the hell are you talking about?


>> but that's
>>
>>> the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
>>> notion of "equal consideration" in that context.

>> I don't want to talk about it,

>
> Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time.


YOU are the one who is supposed to be explaining it.

>> I want YOU to give an example that might
>> occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
>> can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
>> coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.

>
> I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can
> only give you highly counterfactual examples.


So the moral guidelines you are proposing we must follow don't relate to
situations in the real world? That seems misguided. What's their purpose?

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


How is that possible, I just made that scenario up out of my head.

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 11:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"