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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > |
|
|||
|
|||
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- |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fruity wrote:
>>Correct, Larry has no facts. > > My website is a self-serving, fraudulent piece of shit. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ignoring the anchovy recipe, or ignoring the anchovy | General Cooking | |||
Rudy's Turkey rub | Barbecue | |||
Rudy Conoza | Vegan | |||
Rudy's Brisket Rub | Barbecue | |||
Ignoring the Disrupters | Barbecue |