|
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Croutons Land Top Brain Surgeon in the Soup
LONDON (Reuters) - A leading British brain surgeon has been suspended from work following a dispute over a bowl of soup. Dr Terence Hope was sent home from the Queen's Medical Center in Nottingham, where newspapers say there is a 39-day waiting list for brain operations, after being accused of taking extra croutons without paying, hospital sources said on Monday. "A consultant was suspended following allegations surrounding his personal conduct," the hospital said in a statement. "He was due to operate today on three patients. Their surgery has had to be postponed." Hope, 57, who has been working as a neurosurgeon in Nottingham for 18 years, is an expert in traumatic brain injuries. Efforts to contact him not immediately successful. http://tinyurl.com/2xdpm Well, there ya go! This prominent surgeon helps himself to a few extra pieces of stale bread, apparently without paying for them, and he's sent home from work. "vegans" cause the WANTON SLAUGHTER of countless millions of animals, and NOTHING HAPPENS! That, Smith, you ****ING MORON, is the difference. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message hlink.net... > Croutons Land Top Brain Surgeon in the Soup > > LONDON (Reuters) - A leading British brain surgeon has > been suspended from work following a dispute over a > bowl of soup. > > Dr Terence Hope was sent home from the Queen's Medical > Center in Nottingham, where newspapers say there is a > 39-day waiting list for brain operations, after being > accused of taking extra croutons without paying, > hospital sources said on Monday. > > "A consultant was suspended following allegations > surrounding his personal conduct," the hospital said in > a statement. "He was due to operate today on three > patients. Their surgery has had to be postponed." > > Hope, 57, who has been working as a neurosurgeon in > Nottingham for 18 years, is an expert in traumatic > brain injuries. Efforts to contact him not immediately > successful. > > http://tinyurl.com/2xdpm > > > Well, there ya go! This prominent surgeon helps > himself to a few extra pieces of stale bread, > apparently without paying for them, and he's sent home > from work. "vegans" cause the WANTON SLAUGHTER of > countless millions of animals, and NOTHING HAPPENS! dude, if we punished everyone who killed animals, we'd have to punish everyone on the planet. what good would that do? i really don't think this is a good contrast for the crouton loving surgeon... > That, Smith, you ****ING MORON, is the difference. > |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
katie wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Croutons Land Top Brain Surgeon in the Soup >> >>LONDON (Reuters) - A leading British brain surgeon has >>been suspended from work following a dispute over a >>bowl of soup. >> >>Dr Terence Hope was sent home from the Queen's Medical >>Center in Nottingham, where newspapers say there is a >>39-day waiting list for brain operations, after being >>accused of taking extra croutons without paying, >>hospital sources said on Monday. >> >>"A consultant was suspended following allegations >>surrounding his personal conduct," the hospital said in >>a statement. "He was due to operate today on three >>patients. Their surgery has had to be postponed." >> >>Hope, 57, who has been working as a neurosurgeon in >>Nottingham for 18 years, is an expert in traumatic >>brain injuries. Efforts to contact him not immediately >>successful. >> >>http://tinyurl.com/2xdpm >> >> >>Well, there ya go! This prominent surgeon helps >>himself to a few extra pieces of stale bread, >>apparently without paying for them, and he's sent home >>from work. "vegans" cause the WANTON SLAUGHTER of >>countless millions of animals, and NOTHING HAPPENS! > > > dude, if we punished everyone who killed animals, we'd have to punish > everyone on the planet. what good would that do? i really don't think this > is a good contrast for the crouton loving surgeon... Dudette...asshole "vegans" like that twit "John Smith" falsely insist that human accidental death and injury are morally comparable to the massive numbers of animal collateral deaths of animals in the course of producing vegetable crops, and that therefore omnivores are guilty of the same ethical lapse as a result consuming everything as "vegans" are for consuming CD-causing vegetables. I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for killing those animals. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> > I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic > activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral > death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for > killing those animals. This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > <snip> > >> I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >> activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >> death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for >> killing those animals. > > > This does not follow, It does follow, you idiot. > and is totally meaningless. No, dummy. You just don't understand it. You should; I've said the same thing in different form to you many times. > The fact that > an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a > good. Strawman. > It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. > The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs > who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE > punished. No, you are NOT. You are CAUSING them, and doing nothing about them. > They are the ones who recognize the wrong and > protest it. No, they don't. If they recognized it, and truly considered it wrong, they would stop participating. They don't stop. That's the whole point. > It is not their fault nobody else does. It is their fault that they participate, when they don't need to participate, and no one forces their participation. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > <snip> > > I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic > > activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral > > death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for > > killing those animals. > > This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that > an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a > good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. > The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs > who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE > punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and > protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. It's their fault that they subsidize the killing just like the rest of us. It's their fault that their comfortable existences are more important to them than the principles they pretend to. It's their fault that their sanctimonious little pose means they can't stand the fact that they are just like everyone else. Everything about the situation is their fault. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dutch wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote >>Jonathan Ball wrote: >><snip> >>>I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >>>activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >>>death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for >>>killing those animals. >>This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that >>an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a >>good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. >>The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs >>who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE >>punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and >>protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. > It's their fault that they subsidize the killing just like the rest of us. That may be so, but it is not what jonnie was writing about. It is a separate claim, unrelated to jonnie's meaningless babble above. If someone engages in a morally evil act in a society which has no sanction against that act -- such as holding slaves in a society in which holding slaves is accepted -- that does not make holding slaves good. It remains evil to hold slaves AND it remains wrong for the society to accept holding slaves. jonnie's statement is morally and logically meaningless. Rat <snip> |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >> Jonathan Ball wrote: >> <snip> >>> I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >>> activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >>> death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for >>> killing those animals. >> This does not follow, > It does follow, you idiot. Not at all. >> and is totally meaningless. > No, dummy. You just don't understand it. You should; I've said the > same thing in different form to you many times. I do understand it, and I understand it is morally meaningless. >> The fact that >> an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a >> good. > Strawman. No, it is what you are claiming: if there is no sanction, and act is not immoral. >> It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. >> The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs >> who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE >> punished. > No, you are NOT. You are CAUSING them, and doing nothing about them. We are not causing them, and we are doing something about them. >> They are the ones who recognize the wrong and >> protest it. > No, they don't. If they recognized it, and truly considered it wrong, > they would stop participating. They don't stop. That's the whole point. But it is an irrelevant point to the statement you made -- either one of them. ARAs do protest the deaths -- they do so here constantly -- and they do not cause them, unless they farm. They do, as I've noted, provide a tiny part of an economic motivation for others to cause them, but their influence there is partial and minute among millions of other consumers. Their absence would not make the deaths stop. Therefore, they do not cause them. >> It is not their fault nobody else does. > It is their fault that they participate, when they don't need to > participate, and no one forces their participation. Agreed. But that has no connection with either point you made. Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Dutch wrote: > >> "Rat & Swan" > wrote > > >>> Jonathan Ball wrote: > > >>> <snip> > > >>>> I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >>>> activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >>>> death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for >>>> killing those animals. > > >>> This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that >>> an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a >>> good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. >>> The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs >>> who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE >>> punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and >>> protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. > > >> It's their fault that they subsidize the killing just like the rest of >> us. > > > That may be so, but No "but" to it, Karen. They do. > it is not what jonnie was writing about. It is > a separate claim, unrelated to jonnie's meaningless babble above. Not meaingless at all, as your fearful avoidance of the "Symbolic Gestures..." thread well illustrates. You and others, in a typically ****witted _tu quoque_, point to human accidental deaths and injuries "caused" by omnivores' consumption habits as a way of refusing to deal with the animal collateral deaths YOU cause. With this thread, I have proved conclusively that the two categories of death and injury are NOT morally comparable. Human death and injury in industry have consequences, which you know they would if stealing a few croutons has consequences. The MASSIVE animal CDs in which you collaborate have no consequences. The very few human deaths and the MASSIVE number of animal deaths are not morally comparable. Your _tu quoque_, already invalid because of being a fallacy, doesn't even have the invalid substance you wished to give it. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote: > > >>> Jonathan Ball wrote: > > >>> <snip> > > >>>> I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >>>> activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >>>> death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences >>>> for killing those animals. > > >>> This does not follow, > > >> It does follow, you idiot. > > > Not at all. It does follow, you idiot. > >>> and is totally meaningless. > > >> No, dummy. You just don't understand it. You should; I've said the >> same thing in different form to you many times. > > > I do understand it, and I understand it is morally meaningless. You do not understand it at all; you couldn't understand that it is morally meaningless. > >>> The fact that >>> an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a >>> good. > > >> Strawman. > > > No Yes. > >>> It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. >>> The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs >>> who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE >>> punished. > > >> No, you are NOT. You are CAUSING them, and doing nothing about them. > > > We are not causing them, You are causing them. > and we are doing something about them. That's a lie. You are doing nothing about them. > >>> They are the ones who recognize the wrong and >>> protest it. > > >> No, they don't. If they recognized it, and truly considered it wrong, >> they would stop participating. They don't stop. That's the whole point. > > > But it is an irrelevant point to the statement you made -- either one > of them. No, it isn't. You simply don't get it. > ARAs do protest the deaths No, they don't. > -- they do so here constantly -- No; not even here. Stop lying. All you do here is handwave and posture and try to absolve yourself of moral blame, as well as the charge of inconsistency. You FAIL. > and they do not cause them, They cause them. They are accessories before the fact. > unless they farm. They do, as I've noted, > provide a tiny part of an economic motivation for others to cause them, The EXACT SAME motivation that you would provide to livestock farmers if you ate meat. You engage in one purely symbolic gesture, and refuse to engage in another that has EXACTLY the same effect. The difference is explained by your self-absorbed laziness: the one is cheap and easy, the other costly and hard. If you wish to be morally consistent (within the framework of your ****witted "ar" beliefs), you must do both. > but their influence there is partial and minute No more so than your influence on meat producers. You can't rationally explain why you engage in one purely symbolic gesture but not in another, one that you OUGHT to do to be morally consistent. > among millions of > other consumers. Their absence would not make the deaths stop. Your absence from the market for meat does not make the deaths of meat animals stop. It lessens it a tiny bit, in the same proportion that your absence from the market for CD-causing produce would lessen CDs. > Therefore, they do not cause them. You cause them in the same way meat consumers "cause" the deaths of meat animals. This is beyond dispute. > >>> It is not their fault nobody else does. > > >> It is their fault that they participate, when they don't need to >> participate, and no one forces their participation. > > > Agreed. RIGHT. > But that has no connection with either point you made. You are too ****ing stupid to see the point. It has MUCH connection. As your ONLY effort to hand-wave away your moral contradiction, you engage in a filthy _tu quoque_, pointing to the death and injury caused to humans in the course of producing things omnivores consume. This thread helps to illustrate that your _tu quoque_, invalid to begin with for failing to explain your inconsistency, is also invalid because the human death and injury are NOT MORALLY COMPARABLE to animal CDs. One of the big reasons for that correct judgment is that there are no consequences for the animal CDs. This thread illustrates it. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
> > > Dutch wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote > > >>Jonathan Ball wrote: > > >><snip> > > >>>I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic > >>>activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral > >>>death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for > >>>killing those animals. > > >>This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that > >>an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a > >>good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. > >>The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs > >>who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE > >>punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and > >>protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. > > > It's their fault that they subsidize the killing just like the rest of us. > > That may be so, but it is not what jonnie was writing about. It is > a separate claim, unrelated to jonnie's meaningless babble above. It is very relevant. > > If someone engages in a morally evil act in a society which has no > sanction against that act -- such as holding slaves in a society > in which holding slaves is accepted -- that does not make holding > slaves good. It remains evil to hold slaves AND it remains wrong > for the society to accept holding slaves. > jonnie's statement is morally and logically meaningless. Nonsense, it cuts right to the heart of your argument. Let's clarify how we got to this point, your obfuscation and/or confusion is getting thick. We have told you all along that your willing participation in western consumerism makes you complicit in massive animal death and that directly contradicts your claim that you believe in animal rights. Your tu quoque response is that western consumerism also leads to human cds, which you therefore claim contradicts our stated beliefs in human rights. This response is flawed due to the extensive sanctions and measures in place to prevent human cds. This clearly shows that the ones that *do* occur are as a result of statistical inevitability, not a lack of confidence in human rights. This is in stark contrast to the lack of sanctions against killing animals. The argument that there *ought to be* sanctions against causing cds is beside the point, there are not, that is why your rights-belief analogy is meaningless. The fact that YOU imply that there ought to be blanket sanctions for killing animals as there is for human rights violations only illustrates how bankrupt your position is. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > >> >>Dutch wrote: >> >> >>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote >> >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote: >> >>>><snip> >> >>>>>I am showing that the human accidental death and injury of economic >>>>>activity are NOT morally comparable to the massive animal collateral >>>>>death in vegetable agriculture, because there are NO consequences for >>>>>killing those animals. >> >>>>This does not follow, and is totally meaningless. The fact that >>>>an evil is not punished does not then make it neutral, or a >>>>good. It means an evil is not punished, and this is wrong. >>>>The truly ironic thing here is that it is ARAs and ONLY ARAs >>>>who are calling for these deaths ("massive" or not) to BE >>>>punished. They are the ones who recognize the wrong and >>>>protest it. It is not their fault nobody else does. >> >>>It's their fault that they subsidize the killing just like the rest of us. >> >>That may be so, but it is not what jonnie was writing about. It is >>a separate claim, unrelated to jonnie's meaningless babble above. > > > It is very relevant. > > >>If someone engages in a morally evil act in a society which has no >>sanction against that act -- such as holding slaves in a society >>in which holding slaves is accepted -- that does not make holding >>slaves good. It remains evil to hold slaves AND it remains wrong >>for the society to accept holding slaves. > > >>jonnie's statement is morally and logically meaningless. > > > Nonsense, it cuts right to the heart of your argument. Let's clarify how we got to this point, your obfuscation and/or confusion > is getting thick. > > We have told you all along that your willing participation in western consumerism makes you complicit in massive animal death and > that directly contradicts your claim that you believe in animal rights. > > Your tu quoque response is that western consumerism also leads to human cds, which you therefore claim contradicts our stated > beliefs in human rights. This response is flawed due to the extensive sanctions and measures in place to prevent human cds. This > clearly shows that the ones that *do* occur are as a result of statistical inevitability, not a lack of confidence in human > rights. This is in stark contrast to the lack of sanctions against killing animals. The argument that there *ought to be* > sanctions against causing cds is beside the point, there are not, that is why your rights-belief analogy is meaningless. > > The fact that YOU imply that there ought to be blanket sanctions for killing animals as there is for human rights violations only > illustrates how bankrupt your position is. You get it exactly right. I've been over this with Karen multiple times, and I can't figure out if she's really stupid, or being disingenuous. As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal death. The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause human death and injury via your consumption choices, yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu quoque_. First, a _tu quoque_ is ALWAYS an invalid response; that's why it's labeled a fallacy. Even if a charge of hypocrisy could be leveled at anti-"vegan" omnivores, it would not mitigate the hypocrisy of "vegans". But the second fatal flaw of the _tu quoque_ is that it is baseless. A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in vegetable agriculture. There are several compelling reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry no consequences whatever, while human death and injury carry very severe consequences. That fact is illustrated by my original post in this thread. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >death. You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal death caused by autonomous farmers. The fact is that they don't have any involvement in them at all. You're merely asserting they do, and that's not good enough. >The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >human death and injury via your consumption choices, >yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." > >There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >quoque_. It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept that I cause them, and neither do I claim meatarians cause them either. A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. You need to show that I've agreed to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, and that I'm arguing my actions are acceptable because you cause them as well. > A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be >leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries >of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable >to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in >vegetable agriculture. Ipse dixit and false. Animal collateral deaths are morally comparable to human collateral deaths according to those like myself who believe both hold rights. >There are several compelling >reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to >be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry >no consequences whatever False. Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action against fisheries found to be responsible for these cetacean bycatches. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm Unless you want to make some distinction between the collateral deaths found in agriculture and cetacean bycatches which include mammals such as dolphins, the argument for who's responsible for them is settled as far as Greenpeace is concerned. Hopefully, they will be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, and farmers will be forced into making similar changes to their methods in time too. >, while human death and injury >carry very severe consequences. False. A consumer of goods with a history of human collateral deaths suffers no consequences for them at all. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > >>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>death. > > > You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting > vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal > death caused by autonomous farmers. Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, voluntary market process that causes animals to die. QED. > > >>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >> >>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>quoque_. > > > It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept > that I cause them, Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. You do cause them. Your participation is morally identical to the receiver of stolen property and the getaway driver in a robbery. This is established beyond legitimate dispute. > >>A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be >>leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries >>of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable >>to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in >>vegetable agriculture. >> >>There are several compelling >>reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to >>be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry >>no consequences whatever > > > False. Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- > based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society > to take action against fisheries found to be > responsible for these cetacean bycatches. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm No consequences. > > Unless you want to make some distinction between > the collateral deaths found in agriculture and cetacean > bycatches which include mammals such as dolphins, the > argument for who's responsible for them is settled as > far as Greenpeace is concerned. Nope. > Hopefully, they will > be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to > reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. Next... > and farmers will be forced into making similar changes > to their methods in time too. > > >>, while human death and injury >>carry very severe consequences. > > > False. No, true. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:21:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >> >>>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>death. >> >> You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting >> vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal >> death caused by autonomous farmers. > >Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >voluntary market process that causes animals to die. You've merely repeated the same assertion without supporting it. Vegans themselves don't cause them unless they do their own farming. >>>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >>> >>>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>>quoque_. >> >> It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept >> that I cause them, > >Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. It's not irrelevant because you've made the claim that vegans invoke a tu quoque, yetI for one don't accept that I cause them, and neither do I claim meatarians cause them either. A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. You need to show that I've agreed to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, and that I'm arguing my actions are acceptable because you cause them as well. >You do cause them. Ipse dixit and false. The farmer causes them. >>>A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be >>>leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries >>>of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable >>>to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in >>>vegetable agriculture. >>> >>>There are several compelling >>>reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to >>>be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry >>>no consequences whatever >> >> False. Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- >> based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society >> to take action against fisheries found to be >> responsible for these cetacean bycatches. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm > >No consequences. The material I've brought here tells you there are or will be, so your assertion has been proved false. >> Unless you want to make some distinction between >> the collateral deaths found in agriculture and cetacean >> bycatches which include mammals such as dolphins, the >> argument for who's responsible for them is settled as >> far as Greenpeace is concerned. > >Nope. Again, the material I've brought here tells you the argument for who's responsible for them is settled as far as Greenpeace is concerned., so your assertion has been proved false. >> Hopefully, they will >> be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to >> reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, > >Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. They have joined forces with the UK-based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action against fisheries found to be responsible for these cetacean bycatches. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm >>>, while human death and injury >>>carry very severe consequences. >> >> False. > >No, true. They are morally comparable to me, as an ARA who believes both have rights, so once again your assertion is false. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:21:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>>>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>>>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>death. >>> >>>You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting >>>vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>death caused by autonomous farmers. >> >>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. > > > You've merely repeated the same assertion without > supporting it. Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with you specifically, over a three year interval. You are lying. > > >>>>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>>>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>>>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>>>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >>>> >>>>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>>>quoque_. >>> >>>It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept >>>that I cause them, >> >>Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. > > > It's not irrelevant because you've made the claim that > vegans invoke a tu quoque, yetI for one don't accept > that I cause them, Your denial is dishonest, and irrelevant. YOU personally have brought up this phony moral comparison. It doesn't matter if you admit you cause them or not. You are an INTIMATE part of a process in which they occur, and your participation is fully voluntary. You cause them. This is established beyond rational dispute. Your continued attempts to disclaim responsibility are false before you press the Send key. > and neither do I claim meatarians > cause them either. They do. The difference is, they aren't claiming to be "respecting" any right that is violated. You do. > A tu quoque occurs if you argue > that an action is acceptable because your opponent > has performed it. That's what "vegans", including you, do. > You need to show that I've agreed > to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, Despite your alleged denials, you have implicitly agreed when you have offered the _tu quoque_ yourself. >>You do cause them. > >>>>A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be >>>>leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries >>>>of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable >>>>to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in >>>>vegetable agriculture. >>>> >>>>There are several compelling >>>>reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to >>>>be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry >>>>no consequences whatever >>> >>>False. Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- >>>based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society >>>to take action against fisheries found to be >>>responsible for these cetacean bycatches. >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm >> >>No consequences. > > > The material I've brought here tells you there are or > will be No, it doesn't. Greenpeace hopes for a reduction, not a cessation. > >>>Unless you want to make some distinction between >>>the collateral deaths found in agriculture and cetacean >>>bycatches which include mammals such as dolphins, the >>>argument for who's responsible for them is settled as >>>far as Greenpeace is concerned. >> >>Nope. > >>>Hopefully, they will >>>be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to >>>reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, >> >>Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. > > > They have joined forces with the UK-based Whale > and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action To beg for action, not to take action. > >>>>, while human death and injury >>>>carry very severe consequences. >>> >>>False. >> >>No, true. > > > They are morally comparable to me, No. You're claiming they are, but I have explained in great detail why they are not. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
ipse dixit wrote:
> >>>Hopefully, they will >>>be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to >>>reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, >> >>Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. > > > They have joined forces with the UK-based Whale > and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action > against fisheries found to be responsible for these > cetacean bycatches. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm Anyway, shitbag, YOU aren't doing anything to try to stop collateral deaths, and the CDs Greenpeace are trying to stop are those that occur in the production of meat (fish). Greenpeace isn't doing ANYTHING to try to stop animals from being killed in the course of producing vegetables, nor will they. YOU certainly aren't doing anything, either, but you are intimately involved with the deaths. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:49:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:21:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>> >>>>>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>>>>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>>>>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>>death. >>>> >>>>You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting >>>>vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>death caused by autonomous farmers. >>> >>>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >>>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. >> >> You've merely repeated the same assertion without >> supporting it. > >Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with >you specifically, over a three year interval. Rather, you've repeated your assertion over a three year period without supporting it, and it's small wonder, because you'll never be able to support a thesis where vegans are causing the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers. You haven't a hope in proving it, so you merely repeat the assertion without support ad nauseam instead. Good luck with that. >You are lying. Until you can support your assertion, it's you who's lying here rather than me. >>>>>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>>>>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>>>>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>>>>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >>>>> >>>>>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>>>>quoque_. >>>> >>>>It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept >>>>that I cause them, >>> >>>Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. >> >> It's not irrelevant because you've made the claim that >> vegans invoke a tu quoque, yetI for one don't accept >> that I cause them, > >Your denial is dishonest, and irrelevant. My denial is factual and very relevant. I don't cause them, and that's an honest fact. >YOU >personally have brought up this phony moral comparison. You did, and then claimed the comparison was bogus. How many more lies are you going to add to this thread? >It doesn't matter if you admit you cause them or not. It certainly does if you want your tu quoque rubbish to stick, because I for one don't accept that I cause them, and neither do I claim meatarians cause them either. A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. You need to show that I've agreed to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, and that I'm arguing my actions are acceptable because you cause them as well. >You are an INTIMATE part of a process in which they >occur Ipse dixit and false. >You cause them. No, I don't. You're merely repeating your false ipse dixit ad nauseam. >> and neither do I claim meatarians >> cause them either. > >They do. No, they don't. The farmer causes those as well. >> A tu quoque occurs if you argue >> that an action is acceptable because your opponent >> has performed it. > >That's what "vegans", including you, do. I've shown that I don't, so how are you going to prove your unsupported assertion in that others do? >> You need to show that I've agreed >> to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, > >Despite your alleged denials They aren't alleged denials. I DO deny your assertion. >>>>>A charge of moral inconsistency CANNOT be >>>>>leveled at omnivores, because the deaths and injuries >>>>>of humans in industry are NOT morally comparable >>>>>to the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in >>>>>vegetable agriculture. >>>>> >>>>>There are several compelling >>>>>reasons why there is no legitimate moral comparison to >>>>>be made, one of which is that the animal deaths carry >>>>>no consequences whatever >>>> >>>>False. Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- >>>>based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society >>>>to take action against fisheries found to be >>>>responsible for these cetacean bycatches. >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm >>> >>>No consequences. >> >> The material I've brought here tells you there are or >> will be > >No, it doesn't. The link is provided so you can read it for yourself. > Greenpeace hopes for a reduction, not a cessation. I'm sure they realise a cessation is just as impossible as a cessation of human collateral deaths, but they are joining forces with other conservation societies "to take action against fisheries found to be responsible for these cetacean bycatches." That being so, your assertion is false and must be discarded. >>>>>, while human death and injury >>>>>carry very severe consequences. >>>> >>>>False. >>> >>>No, true. False. A consumer of goods with a history of human collateral deaths suffers no consequences for them at all. That being so, your assertion is false and must be discarded. >> They are morally comparable to me, > >No. You're claiming they are, but I have explained in >great detail why they are not. I don't agree that your explanation has been offered, let alone accepted by me, so your assertion is false. Animal and human collateral deaths are morally equal to me because I believe they both hold the same intrinsic value as sentient beings that want to continue living. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dreck Nash wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:49:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Dreck Nash wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:21:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>Dreck Nash wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>>>>>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>>>>>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>>>death. >>>>> >>>>>You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting >>>>>vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>>death caused by autonomous farmers. >>>> >>>>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >>>>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. >>> >>>You've merely repeated the same assertion without >>>supporting it. >> >>Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with >>you specifically, over a three year interval. > > > Rather, Rather correct: I have supported my claim in excruciating detail, and you could not refute it. > > >>You are lying. >> > > >>>>>>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>>>>>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>>>>>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>>>>>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >>>>>> >>>>>>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>>>>>quoque_. >>>>> >>>>>It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept >>>>>that I cause them, >>>> >>>>Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. >>> >>>It's not irrelevant because you've made the claim that >>>vegans invoke a tu quoque, yetI for one don't accept >>>that I cause them, >> >>Your denial is dishonest, and irrelevant. > > > My denial is factual and very relevant. I don't cause > them, and that's an honest fact. You do cause them, and your denial is irrelevant. You are lying, and you are known to be lying. > > >>YOU personally have brought up this phony moral comparison. > > > You did You did. > > >>It doesn't matter if you admit you cause them or not. > > > It certainly does if you want your tu quoque rubbish > to stick, because I for one don't accept that I cause > them, Irrelevant. Your denial is not credible, for reasons I have elaborated at great length and that you cannot refute. You are in exactly the same moral position as the receiver of stolen property or the driver of the getaway car in a robbery. >>You are an INTIMATE part of a process in which they >>occur > > > Ipse dixit and false. No, true. > > >>You cause them. > > > No, I don't. Yes, you do. > > >>>and neither do I claim meatarians >>>cause them either. >> >>They do. > > > No, they don't. They do. > The farmer causes those as well. Directly. The consumers cause them indirectly. This is not in dispute. > > >>>A tu quoque occurs if you argue >>>that an action is acceptable because your opponent >>>has performed it. >> >>That's what "vegans", including you, do. > > > I've shown that I don't Ipse dixit. > > >>>You need to show that I've agreed >>>to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, >> >>Despite your alleged denials > > > They aren't alleged denials. I DO deny your assertion. Your denial is bogus. >>>They are morally comparable to me, >> >>No. You're claiming they are, but I have explained in >>great detail why they are not. > > > I don't agree that your explanation has been offered, You can't deny that it has been offered, ****wit. You do attempt to dispute it, and you fail. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> >> We have told you all along that your willing participation in western >> consumerism makes you complicit in massive animal death and >> that directly contradicts your claim that you believe in animal rights. >> Your tu quoque response is that western consumerism also leads to >> human cds, which you therefore claim contradicts our stated >> beliefs in human rights. Which is true. The question of what sanctions exist has nothing do do with the question of responsibility for the deaths. It is an issue of punishment after the fact which is IRRELEVANT to the question of causation. > This response is flawed due to the extensive >> sanctions and measures in place to prevent human cds. This >> clearly shows that the ones that *do* occur are as a result of >> statistical inevitability, not a lack of confidence in human >> rights. This is in stark contrast to the lack of sanctions against >> killing animals. The argument that there *ought to be* >> sanctions against causing cds is beside the point, there are not, >> that is why your rights-belief analogy is meaningless. It is to the point, and it invalidates your attack completely. It shows ARAs are no less moral than omnivores (your attempted focus ) it shows we are no more or less responsible for the CDs involved in our diets ( your attempted attack ) and it shows we DO protest the deaths (which refutes your lie about it). You are logically and ethical shortstopped on this one, jonnie. <snip> > As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially Karen invoke a _tu > quoque_ fallacy when confronted with the fact of their deep, intimate > involvement in animal death. The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores > cause human death and injury via your consumption choices, yet you claim > to believe in 'human rights'. You are just as morally inconsistent as > you accuse us of being." > There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu quoque_. First, a _tu > quoque_ is ALWAYS an invalid response Not in this case. Your argument is not that ARAs are immoral -- your argument is that they are more immoral than omnivores. You are engaging in an attempted ethical oneupsmanship. It is false, and ARAs will not accept it. If you accept you are equally at fault WRT your own complicity in human CDs, we might find some common ground. As long as you are willfully blind to your own moral fault here, you are simply a sanctimonious hypocrite. <snip> Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: > ipse dixit wrote: <snip> >> A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because >> your opponent has performed it. > That's what "vegans", including you, do. We do not. That is a direct lie. No vegan has ever claimed that CDs are acceptable for either humans or non-humans. >> You need to show that I've agreed >> to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, > Despite your alleged denials, you have implicitly agreed when you have > offered the _tu quoque_ yourself. Nope. What Ipse has correctly stated is that IF you believe your own claim, THEN you are equally guilty in the case of human CDs, and therefore you are equally guilty in not taking steps to avoid participating. Your moral position here is identical to ours. However, we don't accept your premise that our part in the causation of either human or non-human CDs is direct. You've dug yourself into an ethical sandtrap, jonnie. You can't dig yourself out without dropping your useless baggage. <snip> Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> ipse dixit wrote: > > > <snip> > >>> A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because >>> your opponent has performed it. > > >> That's what "vegans", including you, do. > > > We do not. You do. That's the only point in making your false comparison, which is indisputably a _tu quoque_. > >>> You need to show that I've agreed >>> to YOUR assertion that I've caused them, > > >> Despite your alleged denials, you have implicitly agreed when you have >> offered the _tu quoque_ yourself. > > > Nope. Yep. > What Ipse Cut the SHIT, Karen. Dreck. It's Dreck Nash, not "ipse". > has correctly Falsely. > stated is that IF you believe your > own claim, THEN you are equally guilty in the case of human CDs, That's false, because the human CDs and the animal CDs are NOT MORALLY COMPARABLE. This is beyond dispute. > and therefore you are equally guilty in not taking steps to avoid > participating. He is knowingly lying. So are you. It is a _tu quoque_ through and through. You NEED to address YOUR moral inconsistency, not try to point out a bogus one in others. You and he ARE committing _tu quoque_. > Your moral position here is identical to ours. It is not. That's the ADDITIONAL fatal flaw in your filthy _tu quoque_: there is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE. This is established beyond dispute. > However, we don't accept your premise that our part in the > causation of either human or non-human CDs is direct. Strawman: I never said it was direct. You lied. Admit it: you lied. I never said your causation was direct. > > You've dug yourself into an ethical sandtrap, jonnie. You can't > dig yourself out without dropping your useless baggage. I haven't put myself in any trap at all, Karen. You have lied, recommitted _tu quoque_, and reposited your BOGUS MORAL EQUIVALENCE. That is the biggest flaw of all: your attempt at morally equating human CDs with animal CDs is invalid, and I have shown it to be invalid beyond dispute. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dreck Nash wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:02:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>Dreck Nash wrote: >> >> >>>>>Hopefully, they will >>>>>be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to >>>>>reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, >>>> >>>>Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. >>> >>>They have joined forces with the UK-based Whale >>>and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action >>>against fisheries found to be responsible for these >>>cetacean bycatches. >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm >> >>Anyway, shitbag, YOU aren't doing anything to try to >>stop collateral deaths > > > Ipse dixit and false. You don't know what 'ipse dixit' means. You misuse it, every time. > You don't what I do or don't do > with respect to collateral deaths. I do know: you don't do anything. > > >>and the CDs Greenpeace are >>trying to stop are those that occur in the production >>of meat (fish). > > > Then at last you now concede that something IS being > done to control them, Nope. Nothing is being done. Greenpeace is running their mouths, that's all. > > >>Greenpeace isn't doing ANYTHING to try to stop animals >>from being killed in the course of producing vegetables, > > False. They are trying to ban pesticides. They are RUNNING THEIR MOUTHS about banning pesticides, that's all. They aren't doing ANYTHING to stop little animals from being chopped to bits during farming. YOU aren't doing anything, either. Don't bother lying. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
You always get shrill and profane when you know you're wrong, jonnie. > We're NOT DISCUSSING the responsibility for the deaths Exactly. You were discussing the lack of punishment. I am saying the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of the action which is, or is not, punished. Your point is bogus. <snip> Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:47:13 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:49:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:21:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:11:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>As you correctly point out, "vegans" and especially >>>>>>>Karen invoke a _tu quoque_ fallacy when confronted with >>>>>>>the fact of their deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>>>>death. >>>>>> >>>>>>You've fallen at the first fence by wrongly asserting >>>>>>vegans have a deep, intimate involvement in animal >>>>>>death caused by autonomous farmers. >>>>> >>>>>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >>>>>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. >>>> >>>>You've merely repeated the same assertion without >>>>supporting it. >>> >>>Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with >>>you specifically, over a three year interval. >> Rather, you've repeated your assertion over a three year period without supporting it, and it's small wonder, because you'll never be able to support a thesis where vegans are causing the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers. You haven't a hope in proving it, so you merely repeat the assertion without support ad nauseam instead. Good luck with that. >>>>>>>The actual _tu quoque_ is, "You omnivores cause >>>>>>>human death and injury via your consumption choices, >>>>>>>yet you claim to believe in 'human rights'. You are >>>>>>>just as morally inconsistent as you accuse us of being." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There are two fatal flaws involved with the _tu >>>>>>>quoque_. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's not a tu quoque because I for one don't accept >>>>>>that I cause them, >>>>> >>>>>Irrelevant to whether or not it's a _tu quoque_. >>>> >>>>It's not irrelevant because you've made the claim that >>>>vegans invoke a tu quoque, yetI for one don't accept >>>>that I cause them, >>> >>>Your denial is dishonest, and irrelevant. >> >> My denial is factual and very relevant. I don't cause >> them, and that's an honest fact. > >You do cause them Ipse dixit and false. Hard evidence shows that the farmer causes them, so my denial of your assertion is factual and honest. >>>It doesn't matter if you admit you cause them or not. >> >> It certainly does if you want your tu quoque rubbish >> to stick, because I for one don't accept that I cause >> them, > >Irrelevant. If you want your tu quoque rubbish to stick, you'll need to prove I accept your assertion that I cause them and claim my actions are acceptable because you also cause them. A tu quoque occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> I am saying > the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of > the action which is, or is not, punished. On top of all your other errors, that's false. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:15:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:02:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>> >>>>>>Hopefully, they will >>>>>>be able to put some pressure on these fisheries to >>>>>>reduce their collateral death tolls by way of heavy fines, >>>>> >>>>>Greenpeace is in no position to levy fines. >>>> >>>>They have joined forces with the UK-based Whale >>>>and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action >>>>against fisheries found to be responsible for these >>>>cetacean bycatches. >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm >>> >>>Anyway, shitbag, YOU aren't doing anything to try to >>>stop collateral deaths >> >> Ipse dixit and false. > >You don't know what 'ipse dixit' means. Ipse dixit and false. >> You don't what I do or don't do >> with respect to collateral deaths. > >I do know No, you don't, so your claim is absurd on the face of it. >>>and the CDs Greenpeace are >>>trying to stop are those that occur in the production >>>of meat (fish). >> >> Then at last you now concede that something IS being >> done to control them, > >Nope. Nothing is being done. Greenpeace is running >their mouths, that's all. They're doing a lot of work to ban pesticides, as the evidence you snipped away shows. >>>Greenpeace isn't doing ANYTHING to try to stop animals >>>from being killed in the course of producing vegetables, >> >> False. They are trying to ban pesticides. > >They are RUNNING THEIR MOUTHS about banning pesticides, >that's all. [GREENPEACE, the international environmental organisation, today organised a campaign in the city for use of safe food, which is free from toxic chemicals, pesticides and genetically modified ingredients, as part of its `True Food Programme'. The activists addressed fruit and vegetable vendors and consumers in the busy Russell Market area and demanded a ban on pesticides. The campaign is the first consumer mobilisation event organised by Greenpeace. Many agriculture workers were mobilised by Greenpeace activists to join a signature campaign calling for a ban on at least those pesticides that have already been banned elsewhere in the world.] http://www.blonnet.com/2003/07/05/st...0501171700.htm |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:47:13 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>>>>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, > >>>>>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. > >>>> > >>>>You've merely repeated the same assertion without > >>>>supporting it. > >>> > >>>Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with > >>>you specifically, over a three year interval. > >> > Rather, you've repeated your assertion over a > three year period without supporting it Unless you have some magic form of obtaining food you haven't told us about, the point is well established. Just as a person who repeatedly receives stolen property is an accessory to robbery, you are an accessory to the relentless and ongoing killing of animals in the production of your food, medicine and most every other aspect of your life. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dutch wrote:
> "ipse dixit" > wrote > >>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:47:13 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > > wrote: > > >>>>>>>Nope. You are intimately involved with an ongoing, >>>>>>>voluntary market process that causes animals to die. >>>>>> >>>>>>You've merely repeated the same assertion without >>>>>>supporting it. >>>>> >>>>>Wrong. I've supported it in excruciating detail, with >>>>>you specifically, over a three year interval. >>>> >>Rather, you've repeated your assertion over a >>three year period without supporting it > > > Unless you have some magic form of obtaining food you haven't told us about, > the point is well established. > > Just as a person who repeatedly receives stolen property is an accessory to > robbery, you are an accessory to the relentless and ongoing killing of > animals in the production of your food, medicine and most every other aspect > of your life. Yep. There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. He is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. The correct question to ask is, responsibility for what? |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >> I am saying >> the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of >> the action which is, or is not, punished. > On top of all your other errors, that's false. Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society, slavery is moral? Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> > There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear > responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. He > is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone > involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. As do you for human CDs in the production of good you buy. > The correct > question to ask is, responsibility for what? The customer is responsible ONLY for providing an economic motive for the producer to act. He is not responsible for how the producer acts in response to this potential motive. If I offer to buy a stolen car, that does not mean you will, or must, steal a car for me. If you regard it as wrong to steal, you can always find a legitimate buyer. It is the producer who is directly responsible for the methods of production. Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > <snip> > > There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear > >> responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. He >> is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone >> involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. > > > As do you for human CDs in the production of good you buy. The collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, and the accidental human deaths in industry, are not morally comparable. This is established beyond rational dispute. > > >> The correct question to ask is, responsibility for what? > > > The customer is responsible ONLY for providing an economic motive > for the producer to act. You bear moral responsibility for the violation of what you, but not I, view as an animal's "right" not to be casually killed for your convenience. You bear MUCH MORE than the responsibility for merely an economic motive, because: 1. the deaths are an intrinsic part of the current method of growing crops 2. you know it 3. you are not obliged to participate; you CHOOSE to participate Because of all of these things, you bear the responsibility of a full accomplice. This also is beyond rational dispute. > He is not responsible for how the > producer acts in response to this potential motive. Because you KNOW THE METHODOLOGY, and because you ARE NOT OBLIGED to participate, you bear much greater responsibility than what you pretend. You are a full accomplice. > If I offer > to buy a stolen car, that does not mean you will, or must, steal > a car for me. If Sylvia steals a car and offers it to you, and you buy it knowing it is stolen, you are morally and criminally guilty, and that is just. Your deep moral complicity in something you claim to view as wrong is established beyond rational dispute. You are engaging in sophistry. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >> Jonathan Ball wrote: >> <snip> >> > There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear >>> responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. >>> He is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone >>> involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. >> As do you for human CDs in the production of good you buy. > The collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, and the > accidental human deaths in industry, are not morally comparable. This > is established beyond rational dispute. No, it remains no more than your self-serving, hypocritical ipse dixit, as you try to distance yourself from the condemnation of YOUR actions which YOUR (not our) claim creates for you. >>> The correct question to ask is, responsibility for what? >> The customer is responsible ONLY for providing an economic motive >> for the producer to act. > You bear moral responsibility for the violation of what you, but not I, > view as an animal's "right" not to be casually killed for your > convenience. You bear MUCH MORE than the responsibility for merely an > economic motive, because: I don't accept your reasoning. You are wrong. > 1. the deaths are an intrinsic part of the current > method of growing crops They are a convenience for farmers; they could be avoided, and ARAs support their elimination. We are doing something to change the situation; you are not. <snip> Rat |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote: > > >>> Jonathan Ball wrote: > > >>> <snip> >>> > There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear > > >>>> responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. >>>> He is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone >>>> involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. > > >>> As do you for human CDs in the production of good you buy. > > >> The collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, and >> the accidental human deaths in industry, are not morally comparable. >> This is established beyond rational dispute. > > > No, YES, Karen. It is very well established, for reasons I have elaborated in detail, and that you haven't even *attempted* to refute. I am far too learned in the nuances of logic to say that they *couldn't* be refuted, but YOU haven't even attempted to refute them, and I strongly believe that you, Karen Winter, couldn't even make a start. > >>>> The correct question to ask is, responsibility for what? > > >>> The customer is responsible ONLY for providing an economic motive >>> for the producer to act. > > >> You bear moral responsibility for the violation of what you, but not >> I, view as an animal's "right" not to be casually killed for your >> convenience. You bear MUCH MORE than the responsibility for merely an >> economic motive, because: > > > I don't accept your reasoning. You are wrong. You don't have a choice to accept my reasoning or not: I am right. You don't WANT to accept it > >> 1. the deaths are an intrinsic part of the current >> method of growing crops > > > They are a convenience for farmers; They are a conenience for you. They occur, and you know they occur. > they could be avoided, They certainly could be! They maybe even WOULD be avoided, if you could be bothered to ACT on your alleged beliefs and grow your own food. You don't; you are willing to let millions of animals continue to die for nothing better than your ease and convenience. You simply can't escape this, Karen. You COULD reduce your CD toll, the toll of dead and maimed animals that happens only for your ease and convenience, by getting off your ass and growing your own food, but you can't be bothered. This vitiates your goofy moral claims. > and ARAs support their elimination. "aras" do NOT support their elimination, as their voluntary, full-knowledge participation in the market process that causes them proves beyond doubt. You and all "aras" who buy food are hypocrites. There's no avoiding it. > We are doing something to change the situation; That's a lie; you are not doing anything. You continue to buy CD-causing produce, without a peep. > > <snip> RESTO 2. you know it 3. you are not obliged to participate; you CHOOSE to participate You can't get around it, Karen: you KNOW the CDs occur in the food you buy (I notice you've dropped that obscene "I buy local" shabby excuse), and your participation is entirely voluntary. This guts your ethical claims. Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. After prayer and thought, I feel honesty compels me to admit publicly that I have no answer to the long argument here in recent weeks. I cannot defend my belief that my involvement in collateral deaths is less unethical than others' choices. I hereby admit I am wrong, and I feel my only honorable course is to withdraw from this newsgroup. Karen Winter That lament was written over this very issue. Nothing has changed; your specious sophist's attempt in the last few years to carve out a niche for yourself is laughable. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:23:27 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Rat & Swan wrote: >> Jonathan Ball wrote: >>> Rat & Swan wrote: >>>> Jonathan Ball wrote: [..] >>>> > There is no question. Dreck wants to pretend he doesn't bear >>>>> responsibility because he isn't the hands-on killer, but he fails. >>>>> He is intricately involved, and he shares responsibility. Everyone >>>>> involved in the entire market process bears responsibility. >> >>>> As do you for human CDs in the production of good you buy. >> >>> The collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, and >>> the accidental human deaths in industry, are not morally comparable. >>> This is established beyond rational dispute. >> >> No, > >YES, Karen. It is very well established, for reasons I >have elaborated in detail, and that you haven't even >*attempted* to refute. I am far too learned in the >nuances of logic to say that they *couldn't* be >refuted, Thanks for that admission, Jon. >but YOU haven't even attempted to refute them, >and I strongly believe that you, Karen Winter, couldn't >even make a start. You're no Bertrand. "Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope". Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope." |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > Rat & Swan wrote: > > >> I am saying > >> the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of > >> the action which is, or is not, punished. > > > On top of all your other errors, that's false. > > Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society, > slavery is moral? It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral, you say that you believe it is, therefore to be consistent you must act consistently with that belief. Patronizing commercial farming is inconsistent for you, not specifically because cds happen routinely in commercial farming, but because it's a system that contains no sanctions against them. A moral system is obliged to create sanctions and institute whatever measures are necessary to avoid immoral consequences, like human cds. Nonetheless, it is a statistical reality that some number will happen anyway due to the fact that dangers exist in the world. Once a system does take measures, and society *does* do so with regard to human cds, then people who willingly participate in the system are not culpable just because human cds happen anyway. They would be culpable if *no* efforts were made to avoid the cds and they continued to willingly participate and benefit anyway. It's the presence or absence of *sincere efforts* that makes the difference, not the fact that deaths happen. No efforts are made to avoid animal cds, therefore according to your moral position, you are obliged to completely avoid the products of commercial farming. |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote > >> >>Jonathan Ball wrote: >> >> >>>Rat & Swan wrote: >> >>>>I am saying the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to >>>>the morality of the action which is, or is not, punished. >> >>>On top of all your other errors, that's false. >> >>Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society, >>slavery is moral? > > > It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral, you > say that you believe it is, therefore to be consistent you must act > consistently with that belief. Exactly right. In a slave-holding society, the person who claims to believe that slave-holding is wrong may not own slaves. That's the position Karen Winter, animal killer, is in. Omnivores ARE acting consistently with their belief in human rights (presumably, so are "aras"/"vegans"); "vegans" are NOT acting consistently with their alleged belief in animal "rights". [...] |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Protect Fish & Wildlife from Pesticides
Act now to protect endangered species from harmful pesticides! The Bush Administration has proposed rules that would eliminate necessary wildlife protections from pesticides. We are asking you to help ensure those protections are not lost. What's At Stake: It is widely known that herbicides and other pesticides can kill or harm imperiled species and their habitats. But EPA has a terrible track record when it comes to protecting endangered species from pesticides. Even when it finds that a pesticide use will harm endangered species, it takes no protective action, choosing instead to allow the use of pesticides that threaten fish and wildlife including salmon, bald eagles, and sea turtles. Earthjustice went to court to compel EPA to comply with the law and won. A court found EPA in blatant violation of the Endangered Species Act. Just this past January, the court, imposed no-spray zones to keep pesticides out of salmon streams. Other pending cases seek to protect sea turtles, piping plovers, and other endangered species from hazardous pesticides. Rather than abide by the ESA and the court rulings, the Bush administration plans to rewrite ESA by regulation to allow the EPA to "self-consult" and determine for itself whether pesticides will harm imperiled fish and wildlife. Why? Because the pesticide, timber, and industrial agriculture industries want to use these chemicals without the restrictions needed to protect imperiled species. Under the rule changes proposed by Bush Administration officials at NMFS and USFWS on January 30, 2004, the EPA would be given unilateral power to determine the risks of many pesticides to endangered species, shutting expert fish and wildlife scientists out of the process. Act now, as the deadline is fast approaching (March 30, 2004)! Take Action! http://ga0.org/campaign/pesticide_pr...w5ssxs4vjx7i36 Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Assistant Director for Endangered Species Gary Frazer, Attn: 1018-AI95 Below is the sample letter: Subject: Please do not weaken protections for fish and wildlife. Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here], We are very upset to learn that in the 30th anniversary year of the Endangered Species Act, the Administration plans to weaken protections for salmon and other endangered fish and wildlife, and to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to shut fish and wildlife experts out of the process of determining whether pesticides harm imperiled species. The Administration should withdraw the proposal that would allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop consulting scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), to determine what protections threatened and endangered wildlife need from toxic pesticides. The Endangered Species Act's interagency consultation process provides crucial checks and balances on government actions. Threatened and endangered species must be protected from pesticides. The EPA's past actions have shown the agency cannot be trusted to decide for itself whether toxic chemicals will harm imperiled species. Indeed, the EPA has ignored its own science showing that pesticides harm threatened and endangered fish and wildlife, including salmon, bald eagle, and sea turtles. Pesticides kill millions of fish and other species each year. Salmon in the Pacific Northwest, piping plovers in Florida and San Joaquin kit foxes and golden eagles in California are just a few of the species that have suffered due to pesticide applications in recent years. Greater protections for these and other species are desperately needed, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries must use their authority and responsibility to ensure protections are put in place. The proposed rule change will not only hurt threatened and endangered species, but may also hurt the health of American citizens. Chemicals that harm imperiled species are also likely to harm people. Last year, the same rat poison that killed several San Joaquin kit foxes and golden eagles in California was responsible for most of the over 48,000 reported poisonings of children under six. I support strong protections for endangered species. I urge you to withdraw the proposed rule change that would limit the authority of fish and wildlife agencies to protect endangered species from pesticides. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, [Your Name here] --- Please use this letter or write your own to the USFWS to oppose the rule change! Letters are due March 30, 2004. Please speak out to protect fish and wildlife from pesticides! The Administration is taking comment on its proposed rules until March 30, 2004. If you prefer to send your own letter, mail it to: Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Dr. Room 420 Arlington, Virginia 22203 In that case, at the top of your letter include: Attn: 1018-AI95 so your comments can be tracked. Campaign Expiration Date: March 31, 2004 Take Action! http://ga0.org/campaign/pesticide_pr...w5ssxs4vjx7i36 |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
Lesley wrote:
> Protect Fish & Wildlife from Pesticides Yes, stop supporting organic farming. Organic farmers use 350% more pesticides than conventional farmers. > Act now to protect endangered species from harmful pesticides! http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1107 http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_22_02.htm > The Bush Administration has proposed rules that would eliminate > necessary wildlife protections from pesticides. Bullshit. > We are asking you > to help ensure those protections are not lost. They won't be "lost." > What's At Stake: > > It is widely known that herbicides and other pesticides > can kill or harm imperiled species and their habitats. Why do you support organic farming since it also relies on the use of dangerous pesticides? See links above. > But > EPA has a terrible track record when it comes to > protecting endangered species from pesticides. Especially the organic ones! Those aren't tested, and their residues on produce aren't tested -- unlike conventional pesticides. > Even > when it finds that a pesticide use will harm endangered > species, it takes no protective action, choosing instead > to allow the use of pesticides that threaten fish and > wildlife including salmon, bald eagles, and sea turtles. Where's your concern about pyrethrins? Pyrethrins also kill wildlife. <...> > Why? Because the pesticide, timber, and industrial > agriculture industries want to use these chemicals > without the restrictions needed to protect imperiled > species. We finally get to the anti-capitalist bullshit. The proposed changes will not overrule existing endangered species legislation. > Under the rule changes proposed by Bush Administration > officials at NMFS and USFWS on January 30, 2004, the > EPA would be given unilateral power to determine the > risks of many pesticides to endangered species, shutting > expert fish and wildlife scientists out of the process. No, it would shut out the POLITICAL ACTIVISTS whose agenda isn't really about pesticides (where's their clamor to test organic pesticides?) but rather against free enterprise. <...> |
"vegans"/"aras" get off EASY for serious ethical transgressions
chelsea wrote:
<...> > Hear it from a pro-pesticide group; > > 'The proposed joint regulation will minimize the potential restriction > of pesticides by streamlining and clarifying the review process. ' > http://www.msfb.com/news/frontpagest...deESAregs.html Streamlining is not the same as overturning laws or regulations, nor is it to set them aside. It is a matter of process. NOTE YOU INSIPID FOOL: *POTENTIAL* RESTRICTIONS, NOT CURRENT ONES. >>>We are asking you to help ensure those protections are not lost. >> >>They won't be "lost." > > With restriction of pesticides minimized, *POTENTIAL* RESTRICTIONS, NOT CURRENT ONES. This streamlining does NOT affect policy, just process. > what do you think might happen to wildlife? Non sequitur. The move will NOT minimize restriction, you little foot-rubbing freak. <...> |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter