Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.


His article doesn't explicitly do that.



Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.


No, I never imagined anything about his article. I
understood the point of his article - expected utility
and contributory causation - and I extended it.
Legitimately.

You'll note, ****drip - well, you would have noted if
you had read the paper, which you plainly didn't do -
that Matheny writes most of his article concerning
bandits stealing beans from the bowls of villagers. He
then extends his conclusion to cover the contributory
causation of meat eaters to the deaths of meat animals.
Following identical procedure, I have extended his
conclusion to cover the contributory causation of
"vegans" to the deaths of animals of the field.

Matheny's extension is legitimate and correct, and so
is mine.



Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.



Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat."


I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
this. My apologies if it wasn't clear to you, but I
think most of your alleged misperceptions are actually
deliberate. What I meant to say is that Matheny's
exposition of expected utility and contributory
causation can perfectly well be extended to cover
"vegans'" contributory causation of death of animals in
the field. It can, and I did it (the extension.)

What you
should have written was that YOUR extension of it
makes that link rather than the article itself.


I never wrote that the *article* did it. I said that
Matheny's analysis did it. The analysis does it;
Matheny just didn't do it explicitly.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)


Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options

were
eating meat and death? Just curious...


I'd have to break down and eat the meat,
which I consider unhealthy but healthier
than starving. That's a last resort to me.
As long as veg food is available, that's
what I'll choose. Even when shown low
deaths meats, which are rare (no pun)
enough to NOT be able to supply all
meat eaters, I will still choose a veg
food. Some veg foods are 0 death,
but meats always have at least 1.
Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat
meat.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:


Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.



Forced complicity exists,


It does not.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:47 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.

1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.


Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity


There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.


Then forced complicity is not really a form
of complicity. More like its opposite.

2. There IS a choice.


The only other choice


There is not "only" one other choice.


I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget,

====================
Again killer, we are not talking about most people, most people, the sane
ones, don't make the claims that *YOU* do about caring about animal death
and suffering. If animal death and suffering were really of any importance
to you, you'd do whatever it took to make those choices that reduced your
bloody footprints. You however have already stated that you will never make
those choices because you convenience and selfishness take priority.


that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

==================
It can be alot less death than what you eat now, hypocrite..




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.





  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:48 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...


I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)



Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were
eating meat and death? Just curious...


She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that.

Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma!
False dilemma!" and flounce away.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:49 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity

There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.



Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.


Then lets call it forced participation.

I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget,


Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.


Not having the money for something turns
that something into an impossibility
choice-wise.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:50 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.


1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.


Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
as being way less morally wrong than willful
complicity.

2. There IS a choice.


The only other choice (assuming one
can't afford to homestead) is death
from starvation.

====================
No fool, you been shown that they are other choices within the foods that
you eat now! You are just to self-absorbed into killing animals
unnecessarily to seriously look at those options. Afterall, your selfish
conveninece and entertainment come first, as you have proven over and over,
killer.



That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.





  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:50 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity

There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.


Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.



Then lets call it forced participation.


No such thing. You CHOOSE to participate in the market
for commercially grown produce.



I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget,


Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.



Not having the money for something turns
that something into an impossibility
choice-wise.


False, but irrelevant: it STILL does not excuse
wrongdoing. If you claim you "need" food, and you have
no money, and you break into a grocery store and steal
some food, you have done wrong, and you are culpable,
both legally and morally.

You always have choices.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:51 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.


Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. It is choice
that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the
choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual
to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this
mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from
religion to inspire guilt and control.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:53 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
food.


Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice.

====================
That doesn't apply to ou, killer. You have other choices...

The
vegan must buy food and there is not enough
veganic foods available to provide for a
healthy life.

=====================
What happened? I thought this mythical food source was supposed to be able
to feed the world!!!


That makes no choice buy to
buy some commercial foods.

=======================
here are literally 1000s of choices right there, hypocrite. Your problem is
that you continue to choice those foods that you have been shown cause more
death and suffering that you need to contribute to just for survival.
Instead, you demand convenince and savory entertainment. Selfishness and
hypocrisy, killer.


It's literally
a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
away when there's no choice.

=================
Again, that doesn't include you, killer.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.






  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:10 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.

His article doesn't explicitly do that.


Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.


No, I never imagined anything about his article.


You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat.", and when I
asked where, you answered that "His article doesn't
explicitly do that." Thus, you imagined it did.

I extended it. Legitimately.


You extended it without any support for the conclusion
drawn from that extension, and didn't have the guts to
announce that you did extend it to include your wrong
conclusion, either. That's not what I would call an honest
or legitimate extension.

Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.


Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat."


I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
this.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon.

What you
should have written was that YOUR extension of it
makes that link rather than the article itself.


I never wrote that the *article* did it.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon. You should've stated that your extension
to Matheny's article allegedly links vegetarians to collateral
deaths, rather than Matheny's article itself.

I said that Matheny's analysis did it.


No. Your EXTENSION to Matheny's analysis does
it, allegedly; not Matheny's analysis itself. You lied
again. When will you ever learn?
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:18 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.


Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.


Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.


It is choice
that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the
choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual
to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this
mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from
religion to inspire guilt and control.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:21 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.

His article doesn't explicitly do that.

Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.


No, I never imagined anything about his article.



You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat."


No, I didn't. I wrote

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".
I never used the word "article". You lied in saying I
did. We've come to expect that kind of lying from you.


I extended it. Legitimately.



You extended it


Legitimately and correctly.


Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.

Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat."


I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
this.



"it (Matheny's article)


No, "it (Matheny's ANALYSIS)..."


Stop lying, Jon.


Stop lying, fat crippled cuckold.



What you
should have written was that YOUR extension of it
makes that link rather than the article itself.


I never wrote that the *article* did it. I said that Matheny's analysis did it.



No.


Yes. See above.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:23 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:


In article ,
Derek wrote:


On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:


Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.



Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson,


You couldn't do it. He's not crippled, and you are.
Even though he's a pansy, he'd kick the shit out of you.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:38 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does.

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.

His article doesn't explicitly do that.

Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

No, I never imagined anything about his article.


You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat."


No, I didn't. I wrote

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".


Then once again, you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's
analysis) also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths
caused by the production of the crops they eat." Only your
admitted-to extension to it allegedly does that.



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
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 06:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 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