On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:16:40 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" >
wrote:

>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
>
>> WTF is an Athletic Support Vegan... are yoose sayin' vegans is
>> stinkin' jockstraps?
>
>For many of them, you couldn't have said it better.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:

>In article
>,
> Rupert > wrote:
>
>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> mathematician.
>
>Dr Rupert McCallum
>University of Sydney
>Casual External Casuals?
>
>The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>did not have a link to a list of
>publications.

I've pointed out to the doc that though many livestock animals live in poor
conditions and have lives of negative value to the animals themselves, many
others who live in decent conditions appear to have lives which are of positive
value to them. Can you appreciate that distinction, or are you unable to
comprehend what it means even to yourself as Doctor Rupert claims to be?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:04:50 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" >
wrote:

>Are you a moron? The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
>Zombies would only eat vegans.

And vegans who become vampires......?

On Oct 16, 1:26*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:04:50 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" >
> wrote:
>
> >Are you a moron? *The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
> >Zombies would only eat vegans.
>
> * * And vegans who become vampires......?

they drink TrueBlood.

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>> mathematician.
>>
>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>> University of Sydney
>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>> did not have a link to a list of
>> publications.
>
> I've pointed out to the doc that though many livestock animals live in poor
> conditions and have lives of negative value to the animals themselves, many
> others who live in decent conditions appear to have lives which are of positive
> value to them. Can you appreciate that distinction, or are you unable to
> comprehend what it means even to yourself as Doctor Rupert claims to be?

It's bullshit. hth

On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>
> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>
> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>
> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>
> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>
> >> >> >How do you know?
>
> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>
> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>
> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>
> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>
> * * The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?

We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
and the beef.

On 16 Okt., 19:04, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 11, 11:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 10, 10:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > "George Plimpton" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> >> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> >> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>
> >> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> >> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> >> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> >> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> >> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> >> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> >> >> >> > significant health benefits.
>
> >> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.
>
> >> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
> >> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
> >> >> >taste of meat
>
> >> >> Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
> >> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
> >> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?
>
> >> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
> >> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
> >> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
> >> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
> >> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?
>
> >> If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
> >> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
> >> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
> >> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
> >> livestock animal in the biggest way.
>
> >So how much do you suppose that would cost?
>
> * * It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
> whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything.

Yes it does, because the money I spend on it might be spent on
alleviating suffering in other ways.

> And from the
> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
> the cost could never enter into it.
>

But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
most economically efficient way possible.

> But.
>
> * * If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
> cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
> to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
> doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
> course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
> imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
> will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
> raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
> day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
> be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
> a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
> hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
> farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
> areas.
>

And Ball is speculating that you haven't chosen to do this yourself,
would that be correct?

> >> You could do the same with the brothers of
> >> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
> >> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
> >> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
> >> now.
>
> >> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
> >> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
> >> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering.
>
> >> >> It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
> >> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
> >> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.
>
> >> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
> >> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
> >> >produce one serving of rice milk?
>
> >> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>
> >> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). to
> >> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
> >> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
> >> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
> >> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>
> >> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>
> >> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
> >> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1 sq.ft.; and
> >> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>
> >> [...]
>
> >Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
> >milk you get out of an acre of rice.
>
> * * You're the math guy...you tell me.
>

It's an empirical question, not a maths question.

> >> > The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
> >> > possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
> >> > grey and brown (rats)". You and I could layout rats in a matching
> >> > configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
> >> > since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
> >> > the rice is flooded". Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
> >> > his fields.
>
> >I didn't write this. Who is this from?
>
> * * Whoever diderot was telling about it years ago.
>
> >> rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
> >> harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. we flood in
> >> mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. in february and
> >> march, the land is disced and planed." - didderot
>
> >> >> >But you may find it unlikely that you would enjoy food and/or you may
> >> >> >not find the consideration about animal suffering to be compelling..
> >> >> >Which is of course your choice, I have no interest in trying to get
> >> >> >you to change your mind.
>
> >> >> I told a guy about the difference between cage free and battery farmed eggs
> >> >> and he started buying cage free. So he's doing something while veganism does
> >> >> nothing.
>
> >> >This assertion strikes me as irrational. Moving from battery-farmed
> >> >eggs to cage-free eggs is of course an improvement, and moving to no
> >> >eggs at all is at least as much of an improvement.
>
> >> Not from my pov. From my pov not supporting the cage free method is nothing
> >> more than not supporting the cage free method. I believe the cage method is
> >> cruel but that most cage free hens have lives of positive value to them. If you
> >> don't know what that means yet then you just don't know.
>
> >Well, it's at least as much of an improvement in terms of suffering
> >reduction. You obviously think that encouraging people to bring
> >animals into existence whose lives will contain a balance of pleasant
> >experiences over aversive experiences should be part of the goal too.
>
> * * I try to think openly about things, which includes trying to think them
> through. My belief is that eventually people will produce meat without need of
> living animals. That means no more livestock experiencing their lives, but
> instead meat grown in vats and no consciousness involved at all. From my pov
> that will not be a better situation than livestock experiencing lives of
> positive value, so I encourage people to appreciate them while they still are in
> existence and will continue to be for a while.
>
> >> >> Vegans help livestock like dead people help livestock, while at the
> >> >> same time still contributing to the deaths of wildlife that most people do.
>
> >> >The belief is that most animals living on modern farms have lives
> >> >which contain a lot of suffering, and the motivation is to reduce the
> >> >number of animals who are brought into existence in order to lead such
> >> >lives. Veganism sounds like one pretty rational strategy for achieving
> >> >this goal. But perhaps you think that there is something wrong with
> >> >the goal?
>
> >> I believe a lot of livestock do have lives of positive value, and that
> >> almost all of them could if people took the interest. Amusingly before I started
> >> posting here I imagined that sort of thing and what could be done to make their
> >> lives better was the sort of things people discussed, and WHICH animals have
> >> lives of positive value and which do not. LOL...you people can't get anywhere
> >> near stuff like that.
>
> >So how about animals in the wild? Are their lives "of positive value"?
>
> * * Some are and some are not, the same as with livestock and humans and
> everything else. The value can change for wildlife just as it can for livestock
> also. Wild animals aren't necessarily really free to do whatever they want
> either, since they're restricted by the territories of other animals as well as
> other types of natural restrictions and the influence of humans. I feel that in
> general the lives of domestic animals are better than those of wildlife, since
> they usually don't live in fear of predators, or have to worry about getting
> food, or water, or being driven off of their own territory, etc...

But if some wild animals have lives that are "of positive value", then
it's conceivable that by being a vegan I could be reducing land use
and thereby creating ecological niches for wild animals to fill up,
and this might result in a greater increase in the balance of pleasant
experiences over aversive ones than would be the case if I ate beef
instead, even granting that livestock tend to have better lives than
wild animals (because a larger number of wild animals might be
involved and you agreed that some of them have lives "of positive
value").

So the question is not as simple as you are making out.

On Oct 16, 7:24*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> >> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> >> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>
> >> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> >> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> >> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> >> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> >> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> >> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> >> >> >> significant health benefits.
>
> >> >> >> -----
>
> >> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
> >> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
> >> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
> >> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>
> >> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
> >> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
> >> >> >thing that I am vegan.
>
> >> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?
>
> >> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.
>
> >> Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>
> >Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.
>
> * * I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
> fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
> the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
> that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.
>

It is sometimes, just not usually.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >It is just as easy to sensibly plan a vegan
> >> >> >diet as an omnivorous one. Your opinions about vegans are just not
> >> >> >especially well-informed; you don't really know what you're talking
> >> >> >about.
>
> >> >> You don't contribute to any decent lives for livestock, but only to the
> >> >> deaths of wildlife. Hopefully he knows that much at least.
>
> >> >I have taken steps to reduce my contribution to the amount of
> >> >suffering that takes place. I don't see any good reason to think that
> >> >the strategy I've chosen is a poor one.
>
> >> You could contribute to decent lives for livestock, and probably to less
> >> suffering at the same time.
>
> >Do you think that animals in the wild have "decent lives"?
>
> * * Some do and some don't. In general I feel that domestic animals probably
> have better lives than most wild animals. They also live longer imo. For example
> though broiler chickens only live about 6-8 weeks it's still longer than most
> ground nesting birds in general imo, probably most of them only successfully
> raising a tiny percentage of chicks that hatch for more than a couple of weeks
> at best. Even in larger animals I imagine the majority of offspring don't make
> it very long, and the only time the majority do make it is when their non-human
> predators have been pretty much if not entirely removed from the area.

But it still might be conceivable that bringing about a large increase
in the number of wild animals might be better than bringing about a
small increase in the number of livestock.

On Oct 16, 6:51*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > <truths.
>
> > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > <
> > > <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > > I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> > > no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.
>
> > <
> > <It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
> > <illegal.
>
> > And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.
>
> <
> <The fact that people are generally strongly disposed to have moral
> <beliefs probably has a fair bit to do with it. That doesn't give you
> <any non-question-begging grounds for thinking that there are actually
> <any moral truths.
>
> I already pointed one out, not that it makes any sense to care about
> the suffering of animals if there were no moral truths.
>

You didn't point out any non-question-begging grounds for thinking
that there are moral truths. Obviously I do not care whether you think
that what I care about "makes sense".

On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>
>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>>
>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>>>> True.
>>
>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>
> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.

Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
never recanted it.


> In this thread I just
> said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
> reduce my contribution to suffering.

Why would you want to do such a thing? Is there a moral principle - or
an alleged moral principle - behind it?

On Oct 16, 7:25*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>
> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> * * Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> beings.

It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
colleagues?

> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
> license.

I've never tried to get a driver's license.

On Oct 16, 10:28*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> >>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> >>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>
> >>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> >>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>
> >>>>> True.
>
> >>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>
> >>> No, it's not.
>
> >> Yes, it is. *You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
> >> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>
> > I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>
> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
> never recanted it.
>

Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
changed my position.

> > In this thread I just
> > said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
> > reduce my contribution to suffering.
>
> Why would you want to do such a thing? *Is there a moral principle - or
> an alleged moral principle - behind it?

You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want to
reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty of people
who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's not much point in
trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental. Either you care about
animal suffering or you don't. In my experience most people care to at
least some degree, although usually not to the extent of trying to
change their eating habits to do something about it.

Do you find it hard to understand why someone would want to buy free-
range eggs instead of battery-cage eggs? It's pretty much the same
thing; just making a more significant change in the eating habits.

It's not based on a belief in the existence of any moral truths, but
you could probably say it's based on a moral attitude of some kind.

On 10/16/2012 7:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:45 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>
>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>>
>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>>>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
>>>>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
>>>>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
>>>>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.
>>
>>>> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
>>>> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.
>>
>>> I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.
>>
>> That's exactly what it is.
>>
>>> In my case, it's a
>>> pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
>>> to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> You ****wit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
>> animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.
>
> Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> skeptical that there are any moral truths?

Because I don't believe you when you say that. You may not think there
are any absolute, ironclad moral truths, but I have a hard time
believing that you think the whole idea of moral truth is nonsense.


>> It has been very
>> well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
>> likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
>> suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
>> greater reduction.
>>
>
> Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

I and others have provided you with them many times before. You always
reject them, in your usual squirrelly way; you do a few dance moves
known as "the 'vegan' shuffle"
(http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one)
and then just shrug it off.


>> The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
>> even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;
>
> It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

Are you admitting you have no coherent rationale for it? That is,
you're willing to go to extremes - "vegans" are always ****ing and
moaning about how "hard" it is to be "vegan", and I know for certain
that it's much harder even to be vegetarian, let alone "vegan", in
Germany - essentially "just because"? Excuse me, but that doesn't sound
believable at all.


>> nor,
>> if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
>> to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
>> should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
>> telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
>> efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
>> you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
>> mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.
>
> Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> to reduce suffering,

Yeah, you tried that little shit-nugget of sophistry before, too. It's
a rationalization. The simple fact is, you can't make a meaningfully
greater impact as a "vegan" maths prof than you could as a "vegan"
telemarketer.


> I never made any claim. I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering,

And you can't give any coherent explanation for wanting to do that.
Amazing.


> but also sometimes
> considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> motivates me to do it.
>

On 10/16/2012 10:25 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.
>
> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> which are of positive value

Define it <chortle>

You still can't. Too funny.

On Oct 16, 10:36*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:45 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> >>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> >>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>
> >>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> >>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>
> >>>>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> >>>>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> >>>>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> >>>>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.
>
> >>>> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> >>>> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.
>
> >>> I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.
>
> >> That's exactly what it is.
>
> >>> In my case, it's a
> >>> pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> >>> to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> >>> thread.
>
> >> You ****wit: *presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> >> animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.
>
> > Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> > skeptical that there are any moral truths?
>
> Because I don't believe you when you say that. *You may not think there
> are any absolute, ironclad moral truths, but I have a hard time
> believing that you think the whole idea of moral truth is nonsense.
>

I have various moral attitudes towards various types of conduct,
similar to those of many other people, and am motivated to try to live
up to various ideals. I don't believe in the existence of any moral
truths (although my mind is open on the matter). It's basically a
metaphysical position; it doesn't necessarily make a huge difference
to your practical decision-making or the feelings that you have about
various kinds of behaviour.

> >> * It has been very
> >> well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> >> likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> >> suffering. *You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> >> greater reduction.
>
> > Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.
>
> I and others have provided you with them many times before. *You always
> reject them, in your usual squirrelly way; you do a few dance moves
> known as "the 'vegan' shuffle"
> (http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...)
> and then just shrug it off.
>

As far as I can recall, you never really came up with any concrete
suggestion for how I could make a further improvement, together with
compelling evidence that it would indeed be a further improvement. If
I'm mistaken about that, then no doubt you can show me where you did
it.

I'm really trying to do the best I can to reduce the amount of
suffering required in order to produce my food, within the constraints
of not making too great personal sacrifices and not sacrificing
opportunities to alleviate suffering in other ways. I'm not really all
that interested in whether you think I'm doing a good job or not,
unless you have some concrete helpful suggestions for how I could
further improve. You have provided some in the past but I didn't
really see any compelling evidence that they would indeed be
improvements.

> >> The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> >> even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;
>
> > It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.
>
> Are you admitting you have no coherent rationale for it?

The motivation to reduce suffering is a coherent rationale for doing
it.

> *That is,
> you're willing to go to extremes - "vegans" are always ****ing and
> moaning about how "hard" it is to be "vegan",

I don't do that; I don't think it's all that hard to be vegan. In my
experience other vegans don't complain about it either.

> and I know for certain
> that it's much harder even to be vegetarian, let alone "vegan", in
> Germany - essentially "just because"?

Because I want to try to do something to reduce my contribution to
animal suffering. Yes.

> Excuse me, but that doesn't sound
> believable at all.
>

Well, don't believe me then; what care I?

> >> nor,
> >> if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> >> to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> >> should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> >> telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> >> efforts. *You are not doing all you can. *Saying that you're doing all
> >> you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> >> mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.
>
> > Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> > to reduce suffering,
>
> Yeah, you tried that little shit-nugget of sophistry before, too. *It's
> a rationalization.

Why? Seems like just the truth to me.

> The simple fact is, you can't make a meaningfully
> greater impact as a "vegan" maths prof than you could as a "vegan"
> telemarketer.
>

Well, you probably could because the salary is higher. Anyway, what's
the point of making that comparison? I don't want to be a telemarketer
and I don't think there's any good reason why I should be.

> > I never made any claim. I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> > some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering,
>
> And you can't give any coherent explanation for wanting to do that.
> Amazing.
>

Most people wouldn't find a desire to reduce suffering to be all that
puzzling. Most people are motivated to do it, to some extent at least.
You may be one of the exceptions.

So, anyway, if you find it hard to understand, or you don't believe
me, what care I? I was simply explaining what motivates me to be a
vegan because the topic of conversation came up somehow or other. You
don't have to believe me or find it comprehensible if you don't want
to; I have no good reason to be emotionally invested in whether or not
you do.

"Rupert" > wrote

> > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > <truths.
>
> > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > <
> > > <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > > I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> > > no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.
>
> > <
> > <It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
> > <illegal.
>
> > And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.
>
> <
> <The fact that people are generally strongly disposed to have moral
> <beliefs probably has a fair bit to do with it. That doesn't give you
> <any non-question-begging grounds for thinking that there are actually
> <any moral truths.
>
> I already pointed one out, not that it makes any sense to care about
> the suffering of animals if there were no moral truths.
>

You didn't point out any non-question-begging grounds for thinking
that there are moral truths. Obviously I do not care whether you think
that what I care about "makes sense".

----

Feel free to be an idot then.

--Tedward

In article
>,
Rupert > wrote:

> On Oct 15, 10:53Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > Â*Rupert > wrote:
> > > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > mathematician.
> >
> > Dr Rupert McCallum
> > University of Sydney
> > Casual External Casuals?
> >
> > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> > did not have a link to a list of
> > publications.
> >
>
> Try searching on arxiv.org.

Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.

<http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>

You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
and I will not do your work for you.
What journals published your work?

--
Michael Press

On Oct 16, 11:22*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Rupert > wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 10:53*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Rupert > wrote:
> > > > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > > mathematician.
>
> > > Dr Rupert McCallum
> > > University of Sydney
> > > Casual External Casuals?
>
> > > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> > > did not have a link to a list of
> > > publications.
>
> > Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?

Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
webpage here.

> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>
> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> and I will not do your work for you.

I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum

The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
paper in the pipeline.

> What journals published your work?
>

Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".

Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.

Why do you care?

On Oct 16, 11:22*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" >
wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > > <truths.
>
> > > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > > <
> > > > <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > > > I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> > > > no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.
>
> > > <
> > > <It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
> > > <illegal.
>
> > > And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.
>
> > <
> > <The fact that people are generally strongly disposed to have moral
> > <beliefs probably has a fair bit to do with it. That doesn't give you
> > <any non-question-begging grounds for thinking that there are actually
> > <any moral truths.
>
> > I already pointed one out, not that it makes any sense to care about
> > the suffering of animals if there were no moral truths.
>
> You didn't point out any non-question-begging grounds for thinking
> that there are moral truths. Obviously I do not care whether you think
> that what I care about "makes sense".
>
> ----
>
> Feel free to be an idot then.
>

If you think I'm an idiot then obviously I have no good reason to
care; the feeling is of course mutual.

In article
>,
Rupert > wrote:

> On Oct 16, 4:28Â*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> > "Rupert" > wrote
> >
> > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > <truths.
> >
> > Cool. Â*If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > kind with impunity.
> >
>
> Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.

Non sequitur.

--
Michael Press

On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>>
>>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>
>>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>
>>>> Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
>>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>>
>>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>>
>> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
>> never recanted it.
>>
>
> Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
> fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
> changed my position.
>
>>> In this thread I just
>>> said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
>>> reduce my contribution to suffering.
>>
>> Why would you want to do such a thing? Is there a moral principle - or
>> an alleged moral principle - behind it?
>
> You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want to
> reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty of people
> who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's not much point in
> trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.

Golly - that sounds an awful lot like what ****wit says about "decent
lives of positive value".


> Either you care about
> animal suffering or you don't. In my experience most people care to at
> least some degree, although usually not to the extent of trying to
> change their eating habits to do something about it.

Why do they care about it? What's behind it? Other animals don't seem
to care much about it. What aspect of humanity makes us care about it?


> Do you find it hard to understand why someone would want to buy free-
> range eggs instead of battery-cage eggs? It's pretty much the same
> thing; just making a more significant change in the eating habits.
>
> It's not based on a belief in the existence of any moral truths, but
> you could probably say it's based on a moral attitude of some kind.
>

[Rupert, ]
[Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]

: So the question is not as simple as you are making out.

Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?

--
Antonio Veranos

<insert witty comment here>

On Oct 16, 11:40*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Rupert > wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 4:28*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> > > "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > <truths.
>
> > > Cool. *If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > kind with impunity.
>
> > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> Non sequitur.
>

It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
whether or not there are any moral truths.

Perfectly straightforward.

On Oct 17, 2:19*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> >>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> >>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>
> >>>>>>> True.
>
> >>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>
> >>>>> No, it's not.
>
> >>>> Yes, it is. *You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
> >>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>
> >>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>
> >> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
> >> never recanted it.
>
> > Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
> > fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
> > changed my position.
>
> >>> In this thread I just
> >>> said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
> >>> reduce my contribution to suffering.
>
> >> Why would you want to do such a thing? *Is there a moral principle - or
> >> an alleged moral principle - behind it?
>
> > You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want to
> > reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty of people
> > who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's not much point in
> > trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.
>
> Golly - that sounds an awful lot like what ****wit says about "decent
> lives of positive value".
>

Don't really see the connection, myself.

> > Either you care about
> > animal suffering or you don't. In my experience most people care to at
> > least some degree, although usually not to the extent of trying to
> > change their eating habits to do something about it.
>
> Why do they care about it? *What's behind it? *Other animals don't seem
> to care much about it. *What aspect of humanity makes us care about it?
>

Well, actually, you do quite frequently observe animals showing
empathy towards other animals. I would say it's probably something to
do with having evolved as a social animal.

On Oct 17, 6:47*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> [Rupert, ]
> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>

I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.

On Oct 17, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 6:47*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>
> > [Rupert, ]
> > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.

If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
Vegans? Nevermind then.

On Oct 17, 5:51*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 6:47*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>
> > > [Rupert, ]
> > > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> > I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> > you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>
> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
> Vegans? Nevermind then.

Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.

--Bryan

On Oct 17, 7:14*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 5:51*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 6:47*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>
> > > > [Rupert, ]
> > > > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > > > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> > > I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> > > you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>
> > If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
> > Vegans? Nevermind then.
>
> Why do you capitalize vegan? *Just wondering.


Generally I capitalize all words. That start sentences.

On Oct 17, 7:57*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 7:14*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 5:51*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 17, 6:47*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>
> > > > > [Rupert, ]
> > > > > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> > > > > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> > > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> > > > I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> > > > you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>
> > > If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
> > > Vegans? Nevermind then.
>
> > Why do you capitalize vegan? *Just wondering.
>
> Generally I capitalize all words. That start sentences.

Sorry. I directed that at the wrong poster.

--Bryan

"Rupert" > wrote

> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
<
<I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
<you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.

So...do vegan boys swallow?

--Tedward

"Rupert" > wrote in message ...
On Oct 16, 11:40 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> Rupert > wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> > > "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > <truths.
>
> > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > kind with impunity.
>
> > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> Non sequitur.
>

It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
whether or not there are any moral truths.

Perfectly straightforward.

-----

Another moron who confuses a discussion about morality with
legality. Here's a clue you ****wit -- slavery.

--Tedward

On okt. 17, 17:53, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in ...
>
> On Oct 16, 11:40 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > Rupert > wrote:
> > > On Oct 16, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> > > > "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > <truths.
>
> > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
> were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
> with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
> under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
> beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
> impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
> whether or not there are any moral truths.
>
> Perfectly straightforward.
>
> -----
>
> Another moron who confuses a discussion about morality with
> legality. *Here's a clue you ****wit -- slavery.
>
> --Tedward

I did not conflate morality with legality. I correctly observed that
you cannot kill another human being with impunity because there are
legal consequences. Whether or not there are any moral truths about
such behaviour is a separate issue.

On okt. 17, 17:49, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> <
> <I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> <you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>
> So...do vegan boys swallow?
>

It would probably depend on whether they are homosexual. If you're
interested in whether vegan *** boys swallow, then again, you'll have
to ask them.

"Rupert" > wrote

> > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > <truths.
>
> > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
> were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
> with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
> under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
> beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
> impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
> whether or not there are any moral truths.
>
> Perfectly straightforward.
>
> -----
>
> Another moron who confuses a discussion about morality with
> legality. Here's a clue you ****wit -- slavery.
<
<I did not conflate morality with legality. I correctly observed that
<you cannot kill another human being with impunity because there are
<legal consequences.

Gosh, plenty of convicted and uncovicted murderers must be
really confused. Did they kill or not?

<Whether or not there are any moral truths about
<such behaviour is a separate issue.

Which was actually the point until you went all stupid.

--Tedward

"Rupert" > wrote

>> > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>
>> > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>
>> <
>> <I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>> <you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>
>> So...do vegan boys swallow?
>>
>
> It would probably depend on whether they are homosexual. If you're
> interested in whether vegan *** boys swallow, then again, you'll have
> to ask them.

I already did.

--Tedward

On okt. 17, 18:57, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > > <truths.
>
> > > > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > > kind with impunity.
>
> > > > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> > > Non sequitur.
>
> > It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
> > were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
> > with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
> > under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
> > beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
> > impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
> > whether or not there are any moral truths.
>
> > Perfectly straightforward.
>
> > -----
>
> > Another moron who confuses a discussion about morality with
> > legality. Here's a clue you ****wit -- slavery.
>
> <
> <I did not conflate morality with legality. I correctly observed that
> <you cannot kill another human being with impunity because there are
> <legal consequences.
>
> Gosh, plenty of convicted and uncovicted murderers must be
> really confused. *Did they kill or not?
>

I have no idea what point you think you are making.

> <Whether or not there are any moral truths about
> <such behaviour is a separate issue.
>
> Which was actually the point until you went all stupid.
>

And you haven't really said anything that bears on that issue...

On 10/17/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2:19 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>
>>>>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
>>>>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>>
>>>>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>>
>>>> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
>>>> never recanted it.
>>
>>> Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
>>> fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
>>> changed my position.
>>
>>>>> In this thread I just
>>>>> said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
>>>>> reduce my contribution to suffering.
>>
>>>> Why would you want to do such a thing? Is there a moral principle - or
>>>> an alleged moral principle - behind it?
>>
>>> You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want to
>>> reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty of people
>>> who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's not much point in
>>> trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.
>>
>> Golly - that sounds an awful lot like what ****wit says about "decent
>> lives of positive value".
>>
>
> Don't really see the connection, myself.

I'll make one attempt to explain it. You wrote:

You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want
to reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty
of people who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's
not much point in trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.


*Something* has got to serve as the impetus, the motive, to want to
reduce one's contribution to animal suffering. I trust you're not
suggesting it's some impulse that comes out of the autonomic nervous
system. I mean, everyone has an autonomic nervous system, but not
everyone really cares all that much about the origin of eggs, or whether
or not beef cattle are fed grain. Also, no other species seems to give
any consideration to this at all; predators don't seem at all concerned
about the suffering they cause their prey, and non-predators don't care
about any incidental or collateral suffering they may cause just going
about their lives - e.g., cattle don't look where they're going to
ensure they don't step on any grasshoppers or the like. There must be
/some/ identifiable aspect of human mentality that leads to some people
caring about the amount of suffering their activities cause, and I'm
just trying to get you to say what you think it is. You formerly seemed
to suggest it was some kind of moral principles, but now you're backing
away from that, and I'm simply trying to get you to say what you think
it might be, and you're going all ****wit Harrison on us. When you ask
****wit to define what he means by "decent lives of possitive [sic]
value", and how he can identify which ones are, he refuses to say;
essentially, he says either you get it or you don't, and if you don't,
then there's no way you ever will. That's what you appear to be doing
here when asked to explain what motivates you to want to reduce the
suffering your "lifestyle" causes.



>>> Either you care about
>>> animal suffering or you don't. In my experience most people care to at
>>> least some degree, although usually not to the extent of trying to
>>> change their eating habits to do something about it.
>>
>> Why do they care about it? What's behind it? Other animals don't seem
>> to care much about it. What aspect of humanity makes us care about it?
>>
>
> Well, actually, you do quite frequently observe animals showing
> empathy towards other animals. I would say it's probably something to
> do with having evolved as a social animal.

You don't find much interspecies empathy. I've seen a Youtube video of
a hippo trying to "save" some kind of deer or antelope or something from
a crocodile, but who knows why it was doing that. But you see
overwhelming evidence of a complete lack of concern. Predator animals
don't try to kill their prey by the means that will cause the least
suffering; they just kill however they can. As I wrote above,
non-predator animals don't make any effort to avoid causing collateral
injury and death to animals as they go about their lives.

Anyway, your answer was a complete evasion. I asked what might be
behind the amount of care that would lead a person, for example, to want
to consume eggs from hens not in battery cages, and you just whiffed
off; didn't answer at all.

On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote:
> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>
>>>> [Rupert, ]
>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>>
>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>
>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>
>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>
>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
>> Vegans? Nevermind then.
>
> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.

I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper
noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it
to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the
word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an
organization: The Vegan Society.

I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision,
i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word.
It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt
set of beliefs.

In article
>,
Rupert > wrote:

> On Oct 16, 11:22Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â*Rupert > wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 10:53Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > Â*Rupert > wrote:
> > > > > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > > > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > > > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > > > mathematician.
> >
> > > > Dr Rupert McCallum
> > > > University of Sydney
> > > > Casual External Casuals?
> >
> > > > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> > > > did not have a link to a list of
> > > > publications.
> >
> > > Try searching on arxiv.org.
> >
> > Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> webpage here.
>
> > Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
> >
> > <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
> >
> > You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> > and I will not do your work for you.
>
> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> paper in the pipeline.
>
> > What journals published your work?
> >
>
> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> Why do you care?

I asked in response to
"I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."

As for how much I care, that is not evident.

--
Michael Press

In article
>,
Rupert > wrote:

> On Oct 16, 11:40Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > Â*Rupert > wrote:
> > > On Oct 16, 4:28Â*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> > > > "Rupert" > wrote
> >
> > > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > > <truths.
> >
> > > > Cool. Â*If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > > kind with impunity.
> >
> > > Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> >
>
> It's not a non sequitur at all. He made the assertion that if there
> were no moral truths then it would follow that he could kill vegans
> with impunity. Actually, this is demonstrably false because he lives
> under a legal system which imposes penalties for murdering other human
> beings, so it's not true that he can kill other human beings with
> impunity. This is part of the reality of his situation regardless of
> whether or not there are any moral truths.
>
> Perfectly straightforward.

Okay. I did not parse `impunity' properly.

--
Michael Press