Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Gaverick Matheny pours shit all over Dreck's head (then porks Dreck'swife)
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. This in fact is straightforward: neither meat eaters nor vegetarians, themselves, kill animals (usually). That, of course, isn't the point. The linkage to the actual animal killers is clear. It's even a little amusing that Matheny has gone through all his gyrations to try to show that meat eaters do in fact bear responsibility for the animals they cause to be killed, because I don't think most meat eaters ever think they *aren't* responsible. However, Matheny's analysis, as I said, clearly works to establish "vegans" as being responsible for animal collateral deaths, too, by exactly the same mechanism. Some low-talent sophists like Dreck Nash attempt to make the difference based on the "necessity" of animals being killed in order to produce the food (necessary for meat, supposedly not necessary for vegetables), but Matheny's paper doesn't address that issue at all, as it shouldn't. When we look at one of the two criminal situations that serve as analogies for the idea of complicity of "vegans" in animal deaths - the accomplice in an unexpectedly fatal bank robbery - we see that the accomplice's complicity is NOT dependent on some "necessity" of the unexpected outcome. That is, the accomplice - say, the getaway driver - is already responsible for the bank robbery, but if some innocent person is killed in the course of the robbery, the accomplice ALSO shares in the responsibility for the death. If caught, his punishment will be, and SHOULD be, harsher than if no death had occurred. The "vegan" isn't the hands-on killer of animals in the case of collateral animal deaths in agriculture, but the dead animals are a foreseeable consequence of the process, just as the dead bank customer is a foreseeable consequence of an armed bank robbery, and the "vegan" knows about the virtual certainty of CDs; at least, Dreck Nash always claims she does. "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'" food. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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, act-utilitarians cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. There's no mention in his paper that such a mechanism links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in crop production. You've merely asserted there is and fail to show where. Throw again. [..] |
|
|||
|
|||
> "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. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad" outcome doesn't change. 2. There IS a choice. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > 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, act-utilitarians > cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and > must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER, Dog-beater. All you did was cut-and-paste from the abstract. > > There's no mention in his paper You didn't read the paper; you only read the abstract, and cut-and-pasted two sentences from it. > that such a mechanism > links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in > crop production. Irrelevant. The mechanism applies perfectly well to vegetarians. The EXPECTED utility to animals of the field due to the act of buying commercially produced vegetables is diminished in EXACTLY the same way the expected utility to meat animals is diminished by all meat eaters. The mechanism is the same. Once again, you lose. You may now move on to another form of time wastage. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message . net... <Snip> What's a "Collateral Death" ~~Jonnie~~? Is it the same as accidental? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. >> 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, act-utilitarians >> cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and >> must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. > >Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER I have read it, and nowhere does it even suggest a link between vegetarians and the collateral deaths caused by farmers in crop production. You've read something into it that doesn't exist. >> that such a mechanism >> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in >> crop production. > >Irrelevant. No, it is not. Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers in crop production. Read it again without imagining the words "collateral" and "deaths" exist in it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Matheny said your wife was a good ride.
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. Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. The expected utility argument extends perfectly well to cover "vegans" purchases of commercially grown produce, and the deaths of animals in the field. Matheny didn't need to cover it; I took care of it for him. > > >>>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, act-utilitarians >>>cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and >>>must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. >> >>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER > > > I have read it, You did not. You did cut-and-paste from the abstract. You only read the abstract. > >>>that such a mechanism >>>links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in >>>crop production. >> >>Irrelevant. > > > No, it is not. Yes, it is irrelevant. > Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism > links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers > in crop production. It doesn't matter. He let the "expected utility" cat out of the bag, and it ran right up and scratched your claim of no responsibility to shreds. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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. > > >>2. There IS a choice. > > > The only other choice There is not "only" one other choice. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>>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, 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) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>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 There is no such thing. > >>>>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, Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
|
|||
|
|||
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. >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." What you should have written was that YOUR extension of it makes that link rather than the article itself. You lied again, Jon, and every time you do it you dump whatever argument you're carrying down the toilet. [..] >> Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism >> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by >> farmers in crop production. > >It doesn't matter. It does if you want your lie to be believed, you stupid fool. [..] |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >>>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan |