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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:48 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?


Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.


It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet
back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said
about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered
that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic.

Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
"eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
that's an easy scam.

If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.


Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably
a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a
go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly
for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It
could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come
back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it
wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent
to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about
her being a horse trader?

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?


Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.


It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet
back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said
about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered
that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic.

Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
"eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
that's an easy scam.

If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.


Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably
a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a
go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly
for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It
could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come
back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it
wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent
to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about
her being a horse trader?


It didn't get to the threats of violence that came from Lesley's former
sperm donor in his very first posts, so I don't think it's him. It
didn't have the lachrymose hysteria of a Slater post. It was a bit too
nasty to be a GregGeorge post, I reckon. Whoever was the "Lesley" half
made a point of looking into my Facebook account and seeing something
there that was never posted on my "wall" - something which has already
been obsoleted, too. I agree that it seemed far too aggressive, too
easily, to be either Lesley Simon or Karen.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 8, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


* * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


* * - You are an active participant


* * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


* * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things. You know that I have said in
the past that I would be prepared to countenance the consumption of
some animal products if I were satisfied that their production caused
no more harm than the production of plant-based food, and that Derek
responded to this by emailing my friend Angie and saying that I should
not be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW (which I wasn't, I
was merely a voting member). Also, I have explicitly pointed out in
the past that I don't think that refraining from eating animal
products necessarily makes one ethically superior to someone who does
eat animal products, because that is not the only dimension along
which moral conduct can be assessed.

As is often the case, you simply fail to represent my beliefs
correctly.

Now, as I say, it would be really great if you could just answer the
questions.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.


So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.


I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
not a "legitimate goal".


You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the
consequences of your choice.


You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the
false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your
conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
system of "veganism" is false.


No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
harm that I cause


Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.


That obviously does not follow.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


- You are an active participant


- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 07:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/8/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.


So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.


I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
not a "legitimate goal".


You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the
consequences of your choice.


You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the
false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your
conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
system of "veganism" is false.


No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
harm that I cause


Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.


That obviously does not follow.


It does.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:45 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 8, 6:59*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


* * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 8, 7:00*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.


So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.


I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
not a "legitimate goal".


You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the
consequences of your choice.


You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the
false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your
conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
system of "veganism" is false.


No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
harm that I cause


Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.


That obviously does not follow.


It does.


Why do you think it follows?
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


- You are an active participant


- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:30 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 9, 8:05*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


* * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


* * * - You are an active participant


* * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


* * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. *Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.


It is obviously false that I have done nothing. I have clearly done
something.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


- You are an active participant


- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.


It is obviously false that I have done nothing.


It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 02:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 9, 8:48*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


* * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


* * * *- You are an active participant


* * * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


* * * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. *Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you..


It is obviously false that I have done nothing.


It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.


You strike me as being a very irrational person.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-03-2012, 05:14 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


- You are an active participant


- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.


It is obviously false that I have done nothing.


It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.


You strike me as being a very irrational person.


No.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On Mar 9, 5:14*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:



On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George * * * * * * *wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
* * * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
* * * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


* * * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


* * * * - You are an active participant


* * * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


* * * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. *Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.


It is obviously false that I have done nothing.


It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.


You strike me as being a very irrational person.


No.


Really? So presumably your claim is that you strike me as being quite
a rational person when you assert that I have done nothing directed
towards reducing the amount of suffering required to produce my food?
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default vicarious moral responsibility

On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George wrote:
On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:



On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.


His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:


* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal


* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery


* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions


* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.


Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:


- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.


- You are an active participant


- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans


- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.


You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.


Yep - I never denied it, either.


Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?


Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.


I don't know what belief you are talking about,


The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.


I don't believe either of those things.


You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.


What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
a "reasonable effort",


Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.


It is obviously false that I have done nothing.


It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.


You strike me as being a very irrational person.


No.


Really?


Really.


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
Opinion: Take Personal Responsibility For Your Food ImStillMags General Cooking 17 25-05-2012 11:20 PM
Social host responsibility tepe Winemaking 3 20-11-2009 09:39 AM
OT Hispanic separatist organization MEChA is taking responsibility for setting the wildfires in California Terry[_1_] General Cooking 18 30-10-2007 04:31 PM
Personal responsibility with food... Omelet General Cooking 46 09-08-2007 10:49 AM
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act Curly Sue General Cooking 5 24-10-2005 01:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017