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
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2005, 03:24 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Karen Winter wrote:
...
But given your hatred of this Winter person, you would claim
to dislike her writing even if you thought it was the greatest
literary work since Milton.


You're no Milton, Karen.

Since I'm not seeing anything on topic here I want to talk about,
I'll go back to Lurk mode for a while.


"A while" lasted all of about half an hour the other day.

Maybe another new person will show up eventually.


Another new person or just another nym, Karen?

  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2005, 03:53 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Karen Winter writing as "Meadowlark" lied:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

http://belladonna.org/Karen/winterindex.html



Your writing *is* pedestrian. Plodding and pedestrian.



You haven't read any of my writing, except what I've posted here.


I glanced at the bullshit on that page. I also have
been reading your writing as "Rat" and "Cynomis" since
1999.


But given your hatred of this Winter person,


YOU are "this Winter person", Karen. Your name is
Karen Winter. Stop the charade. You're making an
utter fool of yourself.


you would claim
to dislike her writing even if you thought it was the greatest
literary work since Milton.


Give it a rest, Karen.


You are so obvious.


You are so obviously Karen Winter. You really have
gone round the bend now.


Since I'm not seeing anything on topic here I want to talk about,


You've always been self-absorbed, Karen. I would think
talking about yourself would suit you just fine.


I'll go back to Lurk mode for a while. Maybe another new person
will show up eventually.

  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2005, 04:23 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Meadowlark wrote:
wrote:

It's tempting to respond as Takver.

Meadowlark wrote:

snip

Is there any scientific evidence to support Sapontzis's claim
that some animals are moral agents?


Well excuse my ignorance about Sapontzis, but if we can't agree on what
a set of morals is, then we aren't going to agree on the scientific
evidence for or against. And people have been arguing about that
forever.


For the most part, people have been arguing about how moral
principles are to be applied, or carried out in specific
situations. Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
human cultures. For example, there is no human culture that I
know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.

People in the Kantian tradition tend to say that actions are only
moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
some moral principle ("acting for the right reason"). Regan is in
this tradition. What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
morally. So Regan does not consider children or non-human animals
moral agents. He calls them moral patients, that is, beings toward
whom we have moral obligations, but who have no moral obligations in
return toward us.



Thanks for the abstract. In that case, I disagree with Regan - at
least somewhat. More reasonable to me would be that any being can in
some sense be a moral agent (acts by intent in a manner considered
moral by someone), and also a moral patient (deserving of moral
obligations). Don't you agree?



Sapontzis:

"Furthermore, not all moral actions of animals can be plausibly
accounted for as products of instinct and conditioning. ...
there is at least no more reason to think that a pet dog
pulling a drowning child from a swimming pool is acting
instinctively or reflexively than to think that a human being
doing the same thing is acting instinctively or reflexively.
...even if animals are incapable of demonstrating the morality
of their actions, their intentional and straightforward kind,
corageous, and otherwise virtuous acts can be moral actions,
for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
not require justification to be moral."



Sounds reasonable to me.


If you agree that a human is a "moral agent", whatever that may mean,
and that a human is an animal (no arguments here I hope), then no
scientific evidence is necessary as only fundamental logic is needed.


True. However, that does not apply to non-human animals.


I would say it does, provided we agree that the animals share behavior
motivations and stimuli with humans.


Does this, in fact, undercut Regan's argument, and is it
fatal to Regan's basic thesis?


How would it? I just read some decent pieces by Regan, though I don't
always agree with his language, I don't see the conflict.


I don't think it is fatal to Regan's argument, but I think if we
accept Sapontzis's view above, we might need to reconsider
Regan's definition of non-humans as moral patients. Not difficult,
if we say Regan defines as moral agents only those who can defend their
actions by abstract reason. This would be related to his 18th-century
approach to the definition of rights, IMO.



I'm OK with Regans "moral patients" ideas, as long as he doesn't make
it an either-or, patient or actor. Even adults are sometimes forced to
rely on the morals of others.


You would think that last would matter to the anti-AR crowd,
since they want to attack Regan.


Those are real questions, but they require real knowledge
of AR, and real ability to wrestle with theory. None of those
on either side appears to have any ability to address them.


Either side of what? Beware the false dichotomy.


Well, I think one either accepts that (some) non-humans have rights,
or one doesn't. How rights are defined and applied is definitely
open to varied interpretation.


You have found the problem there. Whether or not humans (or
non-humans) have "intrinsic rights", and what that might mean in
practice, is certainly hotly debated all over the usenet and the world.


snip

Because the other is sacred of course. Without faith in your listener,
your reader - you are completely lost.


Ah, very true. My faith has been severely shaken by the internet.


And stirred I hope.

Cheers-

  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-08-2005, 06:11 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Karen Winter as "Meadowlark" lied:
Scented Nectar wrote:

I sincerely hope that you
are not the Karen they're talking
about.



I am not



Note the word play. She is pretending to say that she
is "not the Karen Winter they have portrayed". Forget
the portrayal for the moment - her name *is* Karen
Winter. The portrayal, of course, is accurate.
  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-08-2005, 06:16 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Meadowlark wrote:


The topic is animal rights.



Ah, well -- I was proved correct after all



No.



Yes.

I am not "Karen Winter" I am not this bizarre creature you
have created.


Here's her clumsy attempt at game playing at its worst.
Notice she puts quotation marks around Karen Winter,
and follows it with some bullshit about some creature I
have supposedly created. What she's saying is "I am
not the 'Karen Winter' you depict."

But her legal name *is* Karen Winter, without quotation
marks. As to my depiction of her, it's true. She
*did* abandon her son; she *is* a self-marginalizing
neurotic (almost psychotic).

By the way - you'll note she never did answer the
narrower questions I said to ask about her views on
pedophiles and NAMBLA. As Derek said, there's a
peculiar and almost perverse honesty about her in some
respects. If you take something she literally wrote as
"Rat" or "Cynomis" that expresses her views, then ask
her if she believes that, she almost can't lie about
it. She has to refrain from answering.

So, again - ask "Meadowlark" if she believes that
NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children
and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she would have
any hesitation in letting her son associate with the
responsible pedophiles she's met. Of course, since her
son has all but disowned her, if he hasn't actually
done so, she'll probably finesse the question - that's
a refusal to answer - by saying some lie about not
having a son.

"Meadowlark" is Karen Winter. That's her real name.


  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-08-2005, 09:38 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


usual suspect wrote:
Karen Winter wrote:
...
Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.


Oh, no problem.


Karen has a history of misleading others herself. That includes her son
and his family about her wishes for her grandson, as well as her church
about what misanthropes she and her evil FAS-defective sidekick are.
Karen (a) says she doesn't like her own son as a person, (b) says she
would've had no hesitation introducing her son to any of her pedophile
friends from NAMBLA, and (c) says she hopes her grandson will rebel
against his own father and develop into a flaming homosexual.
[...]



Considering all the press you are giving to Karen Winter, and the
intimacy with which you know Karen Winter's family, I wouldn't be
surprised if YOU were Karen Winter.

  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2005, 11:13 PM
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Meadowlark" wrote in message
...

... if we can't agree on what a set of morals is, then we aren't going to
agree on the scientific evidence for or against.

HINT: science is a method of studying Nature, in the attempt to
elucidate the underlying Laws by mathematical expressions.
"Morals"/ethics are highly-variable, idiosyncratic, temporary, belief
systems of local tribes of humans, and as such are neither natural, nor able
to be investigated by the scientific method.

Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
human cultures.

Nonsense, the moral argument against killing humans is conveniently
abandoned when there is a "moral obligation" to start a war, colonize
others' lands, or enslave people.

For example, there is no human culture that I
know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.

Yes, and since there is no objective set of ethics/morals, individual
sets of ethics are idiosyncratic, there can be no reasonable discussion
about them.

... actions are only
moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
some moral principle ("acting for the right reason").

Hitler was operating out of -his- moral principles, so what?

What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
morally.

"Generally considered ", by whom?? The local tribe that has a different
set of morals than the neighboring tribe??

" ... acts can be moral actions,
for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
not require justification to be moral."

So, they are idiosyncratic and do not apply to humans, in general.

How rights are defined and applied is definitely
open to varied interpretation.

Again, since there is no objective definition of "rights", they are
highly variable, locally-idiosyncratic, and thus a waste of time trying to
discuss them in a rational framework that simply does not exist.

Laurie


  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2005, 11:17 PM
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" wrote in message
...

usual... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
laurie usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".

Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.

Yet, such hollow bombastic claims aside, why have you not been able to
refute anything I say with facts and logic?
IF you, or noBalls, had any intellectual abilities, you would not
constantly embarrass and enigrate yourself by acting like a vulgar idiot.
Oh wait, that is not "acting", is it?

Laurie




  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-08-2005, 11:33 PM
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" wrote in message
.. .

Correct, Larry has no facts.

My website has well over 700 citations to the current scientific
literature; you have nothing to back your claims but vulgarity, juvenile
antics, and evasiveness.

Laurie


  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2005, 12:50 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Fruity wrote:
"usual suspect" wrote in message
.. .

Correct, Larry has no facts.

My website has well over 700 citations


No facts.

You're a FRAUD, Fruity.

  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2005, 01:12 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Fruity dissembled:

"Meadowlark" wrote in message
...

... if we can't agree on what a set of morals is, then we aren't going to
agree on the scientific evidence for or against.

HINT: science is


Something you don't know and can't do.


"Morals"/ethics are highly-variable, idiosyncratic, blah blah blah


You believe in them, too.

You're a FRAUD, Fruity. A stinking, pseudo-scientific FRAUD.

  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2005, 07:06 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Fruity wrote:
usual... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
laurie usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".

Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.


Yet, such hollow bombastic claims aside,


That wasn't bombastic.
  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2005, 07:10 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Fruity wrote:
Correct, Larry has no facts.


My website


is a self-serving, fraudulent piece of shit.


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
Ignoring the anchovy recipe, or ignoring the anchovy Dee Randall General Cooking 33 22-09-2005 04:50 PM
Rudy's Turkey rub 2kewl-AlamoCityGypsyMC Barbecue 0 04-08-2005 09:34 PM
Rudy Conoza Chemical eX Vegan 3 05-05-2005 03:59 PM
Rudy's Brisket Rub Creamy Goodness Barbecue 6 08-07-2004 01:23 AM
Ignoring the Disrupters [email protected] Barbecue 40 24-11-2003 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 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