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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:38 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 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, Ball.

You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that
need to take place in order to produce my food. And I, while aware of
this, think of you as a rational person.

That's a correct paraphrase of your worldview, yes?

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:15 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 6:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George wrote:
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.


So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, George.


Have a go at it.



You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that
need to take place in order to produce my food.


Yes, because you really had no idea if it was going to make a difference
or not, because you hadn't counted, and you never did investigate the CD
counts for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish or any other changes you
might have made instead. You just *assumed*, on the basis of no
evidence and also knowing *nothing* about CDs at the time that you made
your switch, that not putting animal parts in your mouth would
automatically mean you weren't killing any animals. You've said
repeatedly that you knew as an adolescent before making the switch that
crop farming caused CDs. I just don't believe you. My own adolescence
is pretty far behind me, but I'm around a pretty good number of
adolescents now, and none - not a single one - have that precocious sort
of awareness of the world that one would need. They're kids, and kids
don't think that way. We've talked about this before, how some bright
people grossly and grotesquely overstate how aware they were when they
were younger. It's just bullshit.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2012, 05:08 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 greggeorge/"zakhar"/"mark"/"glen" ( 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 was greggeorge, better known as that snarky little shitworm "zakhar".
The fact that he stalked me and looked up recent stuff about me in
Facebook and the like is the key.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2012, 09:34 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 greggeorge/"zakhar"/"mark"/"glen" ( vicarious moral responsibility)

On 3/21/2012 12:42 PM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:08:00 -0700, George
wrote:

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 was greggeorge, better known as that snarky little shitworm "zakhar".
The fact that he stalked me and looked up recent stuff about me in
Facebook and the like is the key.


Whoever it was sent me an encrypted email through hushmail.

has sent you a secure email using
Hushmail. To read it, please visit the following web page:

https://www.hushmail.com/express/NRTYR2PC ]

It's not available now. [Unknown message code: NRTYR2PC]

Following the link I was asked, "george plimtons first name?" After
answering in small case (3rd attempt) I was able to read and respond
to the email. Whoever it was who misspelled 'plimton' asked why I
still bothered with a.a.e.v. and what I get out of it. Whoever it was
is a keen admirer of our friend Rupert and wants me to stop hounding
him and all the other aras out of a.a.e.v. and to concentrate all my
efforts on you instead. That sounds like Karen to me, although it
could be Lesley.


The only way this could be Karen would be if she had another nervous
breakdown like she did back in 2000. She left a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. all
weepy, but returned some time later like a rabid pit bull dog.


I told whoever it was that I'd gone into
semi-retirement from the group a long time ago, and that I
occasionally went after Rupert because I didn't like his latest
position as a 'new welfarist.'

If you go up the thread to find "Note to St. Derek" you'll see some of
the remarks I made about him, and you, and, as is usual when sending
private messages to Lesley, some of those remarks were copied and
pasted here. I've removed my email address now so that this sort of
thing doesn't happen again.

How can you tell that someone was looking at your facebook page?
Did they leave any cryptic messages on your wall?


It was whoever was posting as "Lesley" back in early January.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...05efbed33627b2

In the message, he/she/it made reference to a recent change of house,
and said she found the info on Facebook, including a reference to a
street address. I never posted any of that on a wall, only in some
private messages that only the Facebook user can see.

Whoever it is knows details about my family. greggeorge used to do
searches for me and post stuff he found.



Note to Glen.

1) Nice try, but no damage done.
2) Get off your lazy arse and do your own work if you want
something done to "reverse the situation."
3) I come and go as I please without any prompting from you
or anyone.




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 08:39 AM
OT Hispanic separatist organization MEChA is taking responsibility for setting the wildfires in California Terry[_1_] General Cooking 18 30-10-2007 03:31 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 11:54 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