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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:40 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

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

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

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

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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


Then once again, you lied.

Stop lying, fat crippled dog-beating cuckold.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:46 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:23:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:
In article ,Der ek 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.


Some things pass right by you without you even noticing
it, don't they?

Let's use your favourite character in a little thought
experiment of our own, shall we? If a catamite was
being buggered up the arse by Harrison, would that
catamite be forced to comply with a buggering or not?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:48 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:23:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

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

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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.



Some things pass right by you without you even noticing
it, don't they?


No.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:51 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

[..]
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".


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.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 08:55 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

[..]

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".



You cannot lie


I didn't.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 09:39 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:55:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Derekr wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Derek wrote:


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".


You cannot lie


I didn't.


As is usual with you, when faced with the evidence of your
lies you snip it all away and pretend it doesn't exist. That's
pitiable. You categorically stated that, "it (Matheny's analysis)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by the
production of the crops they eat.", and when I pressed you
on this issue you finally admitted that it was an extension of
your own making which made the link rather than Matheny's
analysis itself,

"Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.
......
Matheny didn't need to cover it; I took care of it for him."

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:32 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote

The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered,


That in itself a pointless exercise and essentially a strawman. No
meat-eater I know would use such an obviously fallacious attempt to avoid
responsibility, it's vegans who use such tactics.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:33 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote

"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. The
vegan must buy food and there is not enough
veganic foods available to provide for a
healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
buy some commercial foods. It's literally
a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
away when there's no choice.


You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.



  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:34 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ray" wrote in message
...

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. net...

Snip

What's a "Collateral Death" ~~Jonnie~~?

Is it the same as accidental?


Whether it's accidental or deliberate is incidental.


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:36 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production,


If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I
agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice
production.




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:37 PM
Dutch
 
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. That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


What you have is a morality of convenience.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:42 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
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.


That's coercion, not complicity. Complicity implies willingness.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:43 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The only other choice (assuming one
can't afford to homestead) is death
from starvation. That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


What you have is a morality of convenience.


Do you feel life is a convenience?


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



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:45 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice. The
vegan must buy food and there is not enough
veganic foods available to provide for a
healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
buy some commercial foods. It's literally
a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
away when there's no choice.


You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.


What are these choices?


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



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2005, 10:45 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production,


If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I
agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice
production.


No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice.
Collateral deaths are contingent to the production
of rice, not antecedent to it.


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 05:36 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 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 PM.

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