 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> I'm with you there, > > > Go **** yourself you knockle-dragging dispicable peice of pig shit, you > really are good at it (****ing yourself) what a ******. Don't pop a blood vessel there Mike, I support your democratically elected government's legislation to deter people from abusing animals. If you really believe in what you're saying maybe you should start a new movement, "The Right to Abuse Animals". That'd look good on a poster... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > What I mean to say is, when you feel comfortable > enough to discuss the proposition instead of taking > a dive by attacking its adherents, let me know. You could compete in the Olympics in that dive. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > He attacks the person AND what they say, that makes him one better than you. Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature, indeed even within his own ideas about his own nature, (as are you) however he has not deliberately set about to tell lies about what others have said on this subject, unlike you. When one has to stoop so low as to lie about what their opponent have said, a lie in complete contradiction of anything that poster has said, as you have done about me, then it is very obvious that person has come to the end of, and has no further defence, for his evil anti human life ideas. As for the fact that you would be glad to throw a person in jail who has threatend neither you or your property, nor has done you any harm, shows that you are human scum, scum of scum, it shows your complete and callous disregard for your fellow man. I sincerly hope that if the day ever arrives when you need the desperate help of someone who abused an animal, that he in turn spits on you instead. The fact you have deliberately lied about what I said is grounds enough to call you scum, the fact you would through people in jail based upon even further lies you hold about your own nature and the nature of man, makes you worse, far worse than ANY animal abuser I have ever had the disgust to know and I have had to deal with a few in my years. **** you Dutch and **** all that you stand for. The sooner the world is rid of your scum, the sooner this world will prosper and the sooner the REAL animal busers will be a thing of the past. Michael Gordge Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > Dutch wrote: > >> He attacks the person AND what they say, that makes him one better than >> you. > > Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature, indeed even > within his own ideas about his own nature, (as are you) however he has > not deliberately set about to tell lies about what others have said on > this subject, unlike you. Just wait, deceit and doubletalk are his stock in trade, he is a REAL scumbag. > When one has to stoop so low as to lie about what their opponent have > said, a lie in complete contradiction of anything that poster has said, > as you have done about me, then it is very obvious that person has come > to the end of, and has no further defence, for his evil anti human life > ideas. What lie did I tell about you? If I did that I will retract it and apologize. > As for the fact that you would be glad to throw a person in jail who > has threatend neither you or your property, nor has done you any harm, > shows that you are human scum, scum of scum, it shows your complete and > callous disregard for your fellow man. Your position shows a callous disregard for the suffering of an animal, I see no loss to anyone in taking away the right to abuse animals. > I sincerly hope that if the day ever arrives when you need the > desperate help of someone who abused an animal, that he in turn spits > on you instead. I don't want the help of an animal abuser. You think I should engratiate myself to any lowlife just because they might be able to help me someday? What a gutless self-serving attitude that is. > The fact you have deliberately lied about what I said is grounds enough > to call you scum, the fact you would through people in jail based upon > even further lies you hold about your own nature and the nature of man, > makes you worse, far worse than ANY animal abuser I have ever had the > disgust to know and I have had to deal with a few in my years. By now you will have told me what you're talking about. > **** you Dutch and **** all that you stand for. The sooner the world is > rid of your scum, the sooner this world will prosper and the sooner the > REAL animal busers will be a thing of the past. How's that? I am the one taking a stand against the sick cowards. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:12:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>> >>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>Killing an animal humanely for food is >>>>>>>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it. >>>>>> >>>>>> That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason >>>>>> at all. >>>>> >>>>>The reason is that it twists the truth >>>> >>>> It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to >>>> see considered. >>> >>>Not only ARAs hate to see it considered, pretty much everyone does. >>> >> Then you're saying that I'm pretty much the only one who could >> consider whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. > >No, that's not what I'm saying. Sure it is. For example: you are not capable of thinking about whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. I am. You even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the animals to say that. .....Now it gets back to YOU again. You probably can't believe it, but try explaining what it is that you hate about considering the lives of animals without bringing up you, or what you hate about me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: > > > He attacks the person AND what they say, that makes him one better than you. > > Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature, indeed even > within his own ideas about his own nature, (as are you) however he has > not deliberately set about to tell lies about what others have said on > this subject, unlike you. > > When one has to stoop so low as to lie about what their opponent have > said, a lie in complete contradiction of anything that poster has said, > as you have done about me, then it is very obvious that person has come > to the end of, and has no further defence, for his evil anti human life > ideas. > > As for the fact that you would be glad to throw a person in jail who > has threatend neither you or your property, nor has done you any harm, > shows that you are human scum, scum of scum, it shows your complete and > callous disregard for your fellow man. If you saw someone beating a puppy, would you not try to intervene and/or punish the person? Would you react differently if the victim was human? Do you think a crime only counts if it targets you and/or yours? Talk about callous disregard. How do you feel about the fact that animals feel pain just like humans do? > I sincerly hope that if the day ever arrives when you need the > desperate help of someone who abused an animal, that he in turn spits > on you instead. He probably would. Animal abusers often progress into human abusers. Many serial killers started out hurting animals when they were kids. > The fact you have deliberately lied about what I said is grounds enough > to call you scum, the fact you would through people in jail based upon > even further lies you hold about your own nature and the nature of man, > makes you worse, far worse than ANY animal abuser I have ever had the > disgust to know and I have had to deal with a few in my years. > > **** you Dutch and **** all that you stand for. The sooner the world is > rid of your scum, the sooner this world will prosper and the sooner the > REAL animal busers will be a thing of the past. How are these animal abusers going to disappear? Magic? You don't even want laws protecting the animals. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:12:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> >>>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>Killing an animal humanely for food is >>>>>>>>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason >>>>>>> at all. >>>>>> >>>>>>The reason is that it twists the truth >>>>> >>>>> It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to >>>>> see considered. >>>> >>>>Not only ARAs hate to see it considered, pretty much everyone does. >>>> >>> Then you're saying that I'm pretty much the only one who could >>> consider whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >> >>No, that's not what I'm saying. > > Sure it is. No it isn't. > For example: you are not capable of thinking about > whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. Nope, that's wrong. > I am. You > even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the > animals to say that. Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with ourselves. Try again. > ....Now it gets back to YOU again. You probably can't believe it, > but try explaining what it is that you hate about considering the lives > of animals without bringing up you, or what you hate about me. I don't hate you, I hate The Logic of the Larder, and don't give me the "talking pig" bullshit, because I was objecting to it long before we ever saw that essay. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > On 2 Oct 2005 01:35:45 -0700, wrote: > > > >Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature > > And what exactly are these ideas that you suppose > I have, and where have I conceded that your opinion > of them is correct? Debating a subject eg about animal rights, without first identifying the philosophy that you personally live by and just as important the epistemology of that philosophy, is like two builders arguing over whether or not a swimming pool should be built on the tenth floor of an apartment building without first checking the plans of the foundation of that builing to see if the building will sustain the weight. I may well have misread your personal philosophy on man's life (your own), where your ideas stem from and what you actually stand for in the regards of animals rights, HOWEVER IF you agree *animals have rights* then best you start at the beginning, at the foundation of your ideas, define your philosophy standing on one leg with your eyes closed. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:13:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:12:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. > >Nope, that's wrong. > >> I am. You >> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >> animals to say that. > >Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >ourselves. Of course I don't believe you. But if you think you can do it, please explain how you consider whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* while disregarding their lives, and also without considering YOU, or me, or any other humans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > If you saw someone beating a puppy, > would you not try to intervene If it was you doing the beating I would ask, *do you feel better now you ****en retard*? If I fancied I could defend myself from your physical retaliation, I'd probaly add a little provocation, *you ****en gutless retard here if you like the idea of beating things then have a go at me, I dare you to you wanking little chicken shit*. > and/or > punish the person? NOPE, unless he was in breach of a contract *I* had with him, or unless he was on *my* property. > Would you react > differently if the victim was human? Absolutely, because I do not give nor do I grant animals rights, only human beings have rights and even then, it is only a right to life. > Do you think a crime only counts if it > targets you and/or yours? I have already explained in other posts, if a human being or human beings are not been physically harmed or threatened (clear and imminent danger) by the actions of another human being/s, then no action other than peaceful persuasion can be morally justified eg example above. WHY? Because I hold *human life as the standard of moral values* > He probably would. Animal abusers > often progress into human abusers. ****, if you are that concerned about human abuse, then why do you support ****en socialism? Socialism is totally impotent without abusing the *productive* human beings. > Many serial killers started out hurting > animals when they were kids. So why did they hurt the animals, what were their parents doing? I know, the parents were probably ****en socialists, ie had NO idea on the concept of REASON!! WHY? Because REASON is the enemy of socialism its NOT even taught at state schools. If you want to stop animal abuse, then set the example and stop the ****en human abuse FIRST. STOP *forcing* peaceful people to abide by values they may not choose for themselves eg taxation to fund the evil idea of state education, indoctrination a more correct term. Teach *your* children *REASON* taking them out of state schools would help a lot. A child conversed in reason is NOT going to beat up on animals. > How are these animal abusers going > to disappear? Magic? You don't even > want laws protecting the animals. I want *human beings* to be left alone to find their own solutions to their own problems *peacefully*. The application of reason is whats missing from the idea that animal abuse is acceptable, in a word irrationalism. Start at the beginning, its a very good place to start. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
oups.com... > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > If you saw someone beating a puppy, > > would you not try to intervene > > If it was you doing the beating I would ask, *do you feel better now > you ****en retard*? Let's say they ignore you. > If I fancied I could defend myself from your physical retaliation, I'd > probaly add a little provocation, *you ****en gutless retard here if > you like the idea of beating things then have a go at me, I dare you to > you wanking little chicken shit*. They still ignore you, let's say. > > and/or > > punish the person? > > NOPE, unless he was in breach of a contract *I* had with him, or unless > he was on *my* property. So you would ignore their horrific behaviour. > > Would you react > > differently if the victim was human? > > Absolutely, because I do not give nor do I grant animals rights, only > human beings have rights and even then, it is only a right to life. Sorry, but in your world of no laws, can you really enforce that? Also, do you believe that some humans should be owned by other humans, since that doesn't deprive them of your one rule, the right to life? > > Do you think a crime only counts if it > > targets you and/or yours? > > I have already explained in other posts, if a human being or human > beings are not been physically harmed or threatened (clear and imminent > danger) by the actions of another human being/s, then no action other > than peaceful persuasion can be morally justified eg example above. > WHY? Because I hold *human life as the standard of moral values* > > > He probably would. Animal abusers > > often progress into human abusers. > > ****, if you are that concerned about human abuse, then why do you > support ****en socialism? I don't support any form of politics out there. They all have some good and bad to them, so I can't agree totally with any. > Socialism is totally impotent without abusing the *productive* human > beings. I don't see where socialism comes into play. > > Many serial killers started out hurting > > animals when they were kids. > > So why did they hurt the animals, what were their parents doing? Their parents were probably physically abusive. That tends to cause the kids to turn out to be either abusers themselves or chronic victims. > I know, the parents were probably ****en socialists, ie had NO idea on > the concept of REASON!! WHY? Because REASON is the enemy of socialism > its NOT even taught at state schools. Instead of socialism, would you prefer a dictatorship or anarchy? > If you want to stop animal abuse, then set the example and stop the > ****en human abuse FIRST. How about at the same time? Neither is something good. > STOP *forcing* peaceful people to abide by values they may not choose > for themselves eg taxation to fund the evil idea of state education, > indoctrination a more correct term. Who would pay for your roads to drive on? How would kids learn to read and do math? There are a lot of things I disagree with regarding the school system, but at least it's a lot better than none at all. > Teach *your* children *REASON* taking them out of state schools would > help a lot. > > A child conversed in reason is NOT going to beat up on animals. What reason are you talking about? And how is the average unknowing parent out there supposed to teach it? If there were no schools, who would teach the children? Even stay at home moms wouldn't have time for that. Nor the teaching skills. And negligent parents would raise illiterate kids who would be messed up for the rest of their lives through no fault of their own. > > How are these animal abusers going > > to disappear? Magic? You don't even > > want laws protecting the animals. > > I want *human beings* to be left alone to find their own solutions to > their own problems *peacefully*. I'm sure you know that it just isn't so. Many people are just not peaceful or reasonable. In any group of people there are some that are abusive. This crosses all borders and politics. > The application of reason is whats missing from the idea that animal > abuse is acceptable, in a word irrationalism. > > Start at the beginning, its a very good place to start. I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Do you really trust that people can govern themselves individually? What politics do you think should exist? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > If it was you doing the beating I would ask, *do you feel better now > > you ****en retard*? > > Let's say they ignore you. I'd check my premise, *human life the standard of moral value* I would not initiate physical force to stop you. I'd leave you in no doubt that if in the future I had something you need, the price would be very high, in fact I would make it a condition of any future dealings we have, that you stop abusing your puppy. > > So you would ignore their horrific > behaviour. I've already explained, you really ought read the entire post before you ask stupid repetitive questions. > > Sorry, but in your world of no laws, > can you really enforce that? Where the **** did you get that idea from? > Also, > do you believe that some humans > should be owned by other humans, One subject at a time, stop dropping context and stop the strawman nonsense. > I don't support any form of politics > out there. What, and you reckon animals rights is not a political matter? So how would you get your idea into law? > They all have some good Give just one example of the *good* in socialism. Explain how the life blood of socialsim (stealing from the productive) is *good* > I don't see where socialism comes > into play. I explained very clearly, socialists reject reason. People who embrace reason are far less likely to abuse puppy dogs than those who reject it, eg socialists and other mystics. Not all animal abusers are socialists, but all socialists have the greatest potential to be animal/human abusers. > Their parents were probably physically > abusive. Again you highlight the rejection of reason. > Instead of socialism, would you > prefer a dictatorship or anarchy? As it happens *anarchy* is the *natural* state of man, in nature there are only laws of nature, not of man. HOWEVER man HAS the volition of acting rationally and irrationally, rejecting or embracing reason, unlike all other forms of life, man has the ability to understand and or predict with a great deal of accuracy, the short and more important long term consequence of his actions. Man knows that in order to win the constant war against nature, in order to live, and to live in the pursuit of *his* own happeness requires the minds of many men. Man knows that human minds work best when they are left free from force. > Who would pay for your roads to > drive on? Check your premises, that is a question that you and you alone must find the answer to. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
oups.com... > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > If it was you doing the beating I would ask, *do you feel better now > > > you ****en retard*? > > > > Let's say they ignore you. > > I'd check my premise, *human life the standard of moral value* > > I would not initiate physical force to stop you. > > I'd leave you in no doubt that if in the future I had something you > need, the price would be very high, in fact I would make it a condition > of any future dealings we have, that you stop abusing your puppy. Like that would make a difference to the puppy. > > So you would ignore their horrific > > behaviour. > > I've already explained, you really ought read the entire post before > you ask stupid repetitive questions. That wasn't a question. > > > > Sorry, but in your world of no laws, > > can you really enforce that? > > Where the **** did you get that idea from? From the part you snipped out. > > Also, > > do you believe that some humans > > should be owned by other humans, > > One subject at a time, stop dropping context and stop the strawman > nonsense. I'm merely adding questions I'm curious about. Ones that will give me a better idea of what planet you are on. > > I don't support any form of politics > > out there. > > What, and you reckon animals rights is not a political matter? So how > would you get your idea into law? Animal rights is not a political party. All that can be done to protect the animals is to draw up laws for the purpose. Do you not agree that animal abusers are deserving of restraint from their abuses? I guess not. > > They all have some good > > Give just one example of the *good* in socialism. The gov't paid medical care we have up here in Canada is a good thing. It could be better, but it's not bad. > Explain how the life blood of socialsim (stealing from the productive) > is *good* I don't know what you're talking about. If it's a bad side to socialism, then, like I said, there's good and bad to every polical view. > > I don't see where socialism comes > > into play. > > I explained very clearly, socialists reject reason. People who embrace > reason are far less likely to abuse puppy dogs than those who reject > it, eg socialists and other mystics. > > Not all animal abusers are socialists, but all socialists have the > greatest potential to be animal/human abusers. I doubt that. It sounds like you're paranoid about socialists. > > Their parents were probably physically > > abusive. > > Again you highlight the rejection of reason. No, I merely point out the fact that serial killers and animal abusers were likely abused themselves as kids. The statistics say this is often the case. > > Instead of socialism, would you > > prefer a dictatorship or anarchy? > > As it happens *anarchy* is the *natural* state of man, in nature there > are only laws of nature, not of man. Our natural state is to create an ordered society. We are a very creative and mathematical species. > HOWEVER man HAS the volition of acting rationally and irrationally, > rejecting or embracing reason, unlike all other forms of life, man has > the ability to understand and or predict with a great deal of accuracy, > the short and more important long term consequence of his actions. > > Man knows that in order to win the constant war against nature, in > order to live, and to live in the pursuit of *his* own happeness > requires the minds of many men. > > Man knows that human minds work best when they are left free from > force. No one NEEDS to beat animals. Force against that can only be good. Wouldn't you want someone to use force to protect your kid from a predator even though it's not their kid? Force to protect freedom from harm is good. > > Who would pay for your roads to > > drive on? > > Check your premises, that is a question that you and you alone must > find the answer to. Taxes pay for the roads. The taxes you don't want to pay. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:13:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:12:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >> >>Nope, that's wrong. >> >>> I am. You >>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >>> animals to say that. >> >>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >>ourselves. > > Of course I don't believe you. That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? Pretty pointless, don't you think? > But if you think you can do it, > please explain how you consider whether or not it's cruel *to the > animals* while disregarding their lives, I don't "disregard" their lives, I just don't "regard" their lives to be a moral bonus for a consumer of their flesh. > and also without considering > YOU, or me, or any other humans. I *am* considering humans, that's why I believe the Logic of the Larder is unethical. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> I'm merely adding questions I'm > curious about. Ones that will give > me a better idea of what planet > you are on. New Zealand >> > I don't support any form of politics >> > out there. >> >> What, and you reckon animals rights is not a political matter? So how >> would you get your idea into law? > > Animal rights is not a political > party. All that can be done to > protect the animals is to draw > up laws for the purpose. Do > you not agree that animal abusers > are deserving of restraint from > their abuses? I guess not. NZ has been quite progressive in animal welfare legislation, http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/legis...l-welfare-act/. Mike is out of step with the majority of his countrymen, |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Scented Nectar wrote: >> If you saw someone beating a puppy, >> would you not try to intervene > > If it was you doing the beating I would ask, *do you feel better now > you ****en retard*? You should report him to the proper authorities who would seize the animal. That's the law and the moral consensus of your land. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Oct 2005 15:12:21 -0700, wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 2 Oct 2005 01:35:45 -0700, wrote: >> > >> >Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature >> >> And what exactly are these ideas that you suppose >> I have, and where have I conceded that your opinion >> of them is correct? > >Debating a subject eg about animal rights, without first identifying >the philosophy that you personally live by and just as important the >epistemology of that philosophy, is like two builders arguing over >whether or not a swimming pool should be built on the tenth floor of an >apartment building without first checking the plans of the foundation >of that builing to see if the building will sustain the weight. That nonsense doesn't support your claim that,"Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature..", so you still have some work to do there. As for identifying my philosophy, I gave you a brief outline of it in another thread to this which you've cut and ran from without comment, so you're wrong about that too. I'll repost it here (below) for you to ignore again. <repost> So rather than have any argument against the proposition, you're content to just ask that the adherents to it prove it. Was Jefferson asked to prove his ipse dixit when declaring all humans hold inalienable rights, and does his lack of support for that claim necessarily mean that his claim was false? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If you're suggesting that animals don't hold inalienable rights unless someone proves it, then the same argument must be equally valid to conclude you don't rights either. Try again. <end repost> >I may well have misread your personal philosophy on man's life And yet, even while in doubt about my personal philosophy on man's life you still went ahead and declared, "Derek is dishonest in his ideas in regards to man's nature .." Nice one! >(your >own), where your ideas stem from and what you actually stand for in the >regards of animals rights, HOWEVER IF you agree *animals have rights* >then best you start at the beginning, at the foundation of your ideas, Why, so you can ignore it like you did my other response to your questions in the other thread to this? I'll make some effort to put my case forward in the way that you ask, and in return the onus will be on you to make some effort in responding to it without trying to detract from the issue by generally attacking the adherents of the proposition. We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them. Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must also rights bearers. An analogy is written in the form; A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the proposition of human rights. (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to be wronged by moral agents. Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to be wronged by moral agents. Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, because while our rights are based upon the same properties animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, it contradicts itself. Way to go, Mike. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote
> An analogy is written in the form; > A is like B. > B has property P. > Therefore, A has property P. > > (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the > proposition of human rights. > (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the > ability to be wronged by moral agents. > Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has > the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to > be wronged by moral agents. > > Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid > principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, > because while our rights are based upon the same properties > animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, > it contradicts itself. Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing an animal for food is a "wrong". In some imaginary, theoretical world I can see how your logic might hold, but I submit that in the context of a living biosphere teeming with organisms which feed upon and assimilate each other, such a proposition is absurd. You are reduced to making token gestures in order to deceive yourself that you are living according to this ideal. The scheme of rights that circumscribe our social network were created and defined by man to satisfy our need for order and safety, they exist nowhere else in nature. We are not obliged to, nor could we rationally, extrapolate the logic of rights to apply to animals except in specific, limited ways, as seen in animal protection laws. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > <restore snip> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them. Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must also rights bearers. <end restore> >> An analogy is written in the form; >> A is like B. >> B has property P. >> Therefore, A has property P. >> >> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >> proposition of human rights. >> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >> be wronged by moral agents. >> >> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >> it contradicts itself. > >Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing an >animal for food is a "wrong". There's no mention about killing animals for food in that analogy, dummy. Try something else. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:13:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:12:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >>> >>>Nope, that's wrong. >>> >>>> I am. You >>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >>>> animals to say that. >>> >>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >>>ourselves. >> >> Of course I don't believe you. > >That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. >Pretty >pointless, don't you think? Probably. Two things *are* certain: 1. There is nothing I could gain from you, since I thought through all your "arguments" and discarded them years ago in grade school. I knew more than you will probably ever know about this by the time I was 12. 2. The things you could gain from me you don't want anyone to think about--including yourself--because your selfishness is too pure to allow you to consider the animals. And, you do NOT! want anyone to consider that any alternatives could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of animals raised for food. Since what I do is encourage people to consider contributing to decent AW instead of elimination--which is exactly what you are opposed to--of course you will always be opposed to pretty much anything you could gain from me. >> But if you think you can do it, >> please explain how you consider whether or not it's cruel *to the >> animals* while disregarding their lives, > >I don't "disregard" their lives, You have never (LOL! and of course are not now) shown any regard for their lives. LOL...damn Dutch, you are just not capable of doing it, and it appears you're also unaware that you can't. >I just don't "regard" their lives No, you sure don't. >to be a >moral bonus You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. Remember I told you that you can't consider their lives, but only YOURSELF? You just proved it again. You are so worried about losing whatever imaginary moral bonus points you feel you have gained somehow, that you can't consider anything else. LOL...you are so purely selfish it's *incredible*! >for a consumer of their flesh. YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU.... >> and also without considering >> YOU, or me, or any other humans. > >I *am* considering humans, Of course you're only considering YOUrself. Remember? That's the point I was making when I provided the example that you denied, but even as you deny it you prove that: you are not capable of thinking about whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. TO ****ing ***THEM!!!*** (sadly you still remain clueless) >that's why I believe the Logic of the Larder is >unethical. YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU.... As I said, and you prove, you are not capable of giving any consideration to the lives of the animals. Not any at all! What I encourage is what you refuse to even attempt, and in fact you are extremely opposed to. So of course the question as always is: why do you lie? Since you are opposed to anyone doing it, much less are you capable of doing it yourself as you continue to prove, why in the hell would you claim something so obviously untrue as you think it's *essential* that we consider the lives of animals that you have maniacally insisted--for several years!!!-- that we must NOT consider? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> > <restore snip> > We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can > be wronged by them. That statement says nothing, it's circular. > Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and > pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those > properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate others, they aren't, it's the rights that do that. > Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be > wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must > also rights bearers. The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to establish. > <end restore> > >>> An analogy is written in the form; >>> A is like B. >>> B has property P. >>> Therefore, A has property P. Also flawed. A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have property P. An example would be two cars of identical make, model and year but different colours. >>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>> proposition of human rights. >>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>> be wronged by moral agents. >>> >>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>> it contradicts itself. >> >>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing an >>animal for food is a "wrong". > > There's no mention about killing animals for food in that > analogy, dummy. Try something else. I assume that you propose that killing an animal for food is a violation of it's rights, however any similar example would suffice. Choose one. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote > On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [...] >>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >>>> >>>>Nope, that's wrong. >>>> >>>>> I am. You >>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >>>>> animals to say that. >>>> >>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >>>>ourselves. >>> >>> Of course I don't believe you. >> >>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? > > No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of this? >>Pretty >>pointless, don't you think? > <snip> >>I just don't "regard" their lives > > No, you sure don't. Of course not, "regarding" with no object is meaningless. >>to be a >>moral bonus > > You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT the fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. That's the Logic of the Larder, and it's false argument. > Remember > I told you that you can't consider their lives, but only YOURSELF? Yet I just told you that I *do* consider their lives. Again, you're pummeling a strawman. > You just proved it again. You are so worried about losing whatever > imaginary moral bonus points you feel you have gained somehow, I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", I'm telling you that none exist. Your position, The Logic of the Larder, says that humans can argue that raising animals for food is a "good thing" (a moral bonus) because all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded as corrupt. > that you can't consider anything else. LOL...you are so purely > selfish it's *incredible*! Do you understand what the term moral significance means? It means how what we do and how we think reflects upon us as moral beings. It means are we doing good or right, or are we doing bad, or wrong. Morality and ethics *are* about us, not the animals. That's not being "selfish", it's what we're talking about. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:33:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>> >> <restore snip> >> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >> be wronged by them. > >That statement says nothing, it's circular. Statements aren't circular, you imbecile; arguments are, and only when a premise of that argument is repeated as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. >> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. > >You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate others, >they aren't, False. >it's the rights that do that. Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared >> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >> also rights bearers. > >The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to establish. Is that your stock response to everything for the day, or do you have another one to blurt out without offering any reasoning behind it? >> <end restore> >> >>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>> A is like B. >>>> B has property P. >>>> Therefore, A has property P. > >Also flawed. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html You clearly don't know what you're talking about while trying to discuss these terms. >A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >property P. hah hah hah >>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>> proposition of human rights. >>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>> be wronged by moral agents. >>>> >>>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>>> it contradicts itself. >>> >>>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing an >>>animal for food is a "wrong". >> >> There's no mention about killing animals for food in that >> analogy, dummy. Try something else. > >I assume You assumed wrongly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message news  > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:33:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> >>> <restore snip> >>> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >>> be wronged by them. >> >>That statement says nothing, it's circular. > > Statements aren't circular, you imbecile; arguments are, > and only when a premise of that argument is repeated > as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. > You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Your statement/argument, as you please, is circular, it provides no information. The concept of holding of rights against a person and the ability to be "wronged" by that person mean one and the same thing. And please restrain your urge to commit ad hominem fallacies, I am not impressed. >>> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >>> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >>> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. >> >>You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate >>others, >>they aren't, > > False. > >>it's the rights that do that. > > Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared That's untrue, we recognize basic rights in people in comas who can do none of those things. >>> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >>> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >>> also rights bearers. >> >>The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to >>establish. > > Is that your stock response to everything for the day, > or do you have another one to blurt out without > offering any reasoning behind it? I have given reasoning, I demonstrated that both of your premises were invalid. You became flustered and decided to commit ad hominem fallacies instead of responding cogently. >>> <end restore> >>> >>>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>>> A is like B. >>>>> B has property P. >>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >> >>Also flawed. > > A is like B. > B has property P. > Therefore, A has property P. > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html ROTFL! It's listed as a fallacy, the "Questionable Analogy" What a dufus. > You clearly don't know what you're talking about > while trying to discuss these terms. > >>A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >>property P. > > hah hah hah A is like B, both are 2005 Honda Civics B is red Therefore, A is red. Flawed or not? ha ha >>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>>> be wronged by moral agents. >>>>> >>>>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>>>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>>>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>>>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>>>> it contradicts itself. >>>> >>>>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing >>>>an >>>>animal for food is a "wrong". >>> >>> There's no mention about killing animals for food in that >>> analogy, dummy. Try something else. >> >>I assume > > You assumed wrongly. You're an idiot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:01:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:33:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>> >>>> <restore snip> >>>> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >>>> be wronged by them. >>> >>>That statement says nothing, it's circular. >> >> Statements aren't circular, you imbecile; arguments are, >> and only when a premise of that argument is repeated >> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. >> You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. > >Your statement/argument, as you please, is circular Then show where my premise is repeated as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. If I were to have written, "humans hold rights because we are humans and hold rights", then you might have a case, but my statement doesn't do anything like that at all. Stop trying to use terms that you clearly don't understand, because you're making a fool of yourself and wasting my time while I have to then explain them to you. >>>> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >>>> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >>>> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. >>> >>>You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate >>>others, >>>they aren't, >> >> False. >> >>>it's the rights that do that. >> >> Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared > >That's untrue, we recognize basic rights in people in comas who can do none >of those things. They are still declared by other rights holders on their behalf. You just don't get it, dummy? >>>> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >>>> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >>>> also rights bearers. >>> >>>The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to >>>establish. >> >> Is that your stock response to everything for the day, >> or do you have another one to blurt out without >> offering any reasoning behind it? > >I have given reasoning, I demonstrated that both of your premises were >invalid. No, you haven't even indicated the premises, let alone demonstrate that two of them are invalid. >>>>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>>>> A is like B. >>>>>> B has property P. >>>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>> >>>Also flawed. >> >> A is like B. >> B has property P. >> Therefore, A has property P. >> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html > >ROTFL! It's listed as a fallacy, the "Questionable Analogy" It's the definition which describes analogies, and the form I've provided is exactly as written and which you wrongly claimed was flawed. .. [Exposition: This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html Learn these terms and expressions before blurting out they are false or flawed, because all you're doing is making a fool of yourself by revealing you don't know what the Hell you're talking about. >> You clearly don't know what you're talking about >> while trying to discuss these terms. >> >>>A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >>>property P. >> >> hah hah hah > >A is like B, both are 2005 Honda Civics >B is red >Therefore, A is red. > >Flawed or not? That pile of crap doesn't follow the form in which analogies are laid out. For your analogy to work you need to put it in the correct form, and using the information you've supplied would give us; (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic is like (B) a red 2005 Honda Civic. (B) has property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. Therefore, (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic has property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. As you can see, rather than form an analogy you're merely saying that they're exactly the same. You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. >>>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>>>> be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>> >>>>>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>>>>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>>>>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>>>>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>>>>> it contradicts itself. >>>>> >>>>>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that killing >>>>>an >>>>>animal for food is a "wrong". >>>> >>>> There's no mention about killing animals for food in that >>>> analogy, dummy. Try something else. >>> >>>I assume >> >> You assumed wrongly. > >You're an idiot. Dutch, you really do need to study these simple terms before jumping in and declaring that they are false or that someone has used them wrongly. Blurting "false" or "Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove" isn't good enough without giving your reason for why you've blurted it out. You've got to do better than that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:01:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message >>news >>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:33:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>> <restore snip> >>>>> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >>>>> be wronged by them. >>>> >>>>That statement says nothing, it's circular. >>> >>> Statements aren't circular, you imbecile; arguments are, >>> and only when a premise of that argument is repeated >>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. >>> You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. >> >>Your statement/argument, as you please, is circular > > Then show where my premise is repeated as the conclusion > rather than drawn from it by inference. I did, you snipped it, probably without reading it. If I were to have > written, "humans hold rights because we are humans and > hold rights", then you might have a case, but my statement > doesn't do anything like that at all. It does exactly that, except it doesn't simply repeat the same phrase, it states the same thing in different ways. You hold a moral right against me is the same as saying you can be wronged by me. If I were a dog you would not hold a moral right against me which is saying that you could not be wronged by me. Holding a moral right against another MEANS that you can be wronged by them, it's an essential part of it. > Stop trying to use terms > that you clearly don't understand, because you're making a > fool of yourself and wasting my time while I have to then > explain them to you. Don't keep doing that, it just makes you look worse. >>>>> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >>>>> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >>>>> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. >>>> >>>>You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate >>>>others, >>>>they aren't, >>> >>> False. >>> >>>>it's the rights that do that. >>> >>> Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared >> >>That's untrue, we recognize basic rights in people in comas who can do >>none >>of those things. > > They are still declared by other rights holders on their behalf. Exactly, so the "ability to suffer, seek freedom and pursue happiness" is NOT what obligates moral agents to observe those properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. > You just don't get it, dummy? Yes, I do get it pretty well, you're attempting to superimpose faulty ideas onto the concept of rights, and failing badly at it. > >>>>> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >>>>> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >>>>> also rights bearers. >>>> >>>>The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to >>>>establish. >>> >>> Is that your stock response to everything for the day, >>> or do you have another one to blurt out without >>> offering any reasoning behind it? >> >>I have given reasoning, I demonstrated that both of your premises were >>invalid. > > No, you haven't even indicated the premises, let alone > demonstrate that two of them are invalid. I demonstrated that everything you're saying is bullshit. >>>>>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>>>>> A is like B. >>>>>>> B has property P. >>>>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>>> >>>>Also flawed. >>> >>> A is like B. >>> B has property P. >>> Therefore, A has property P. >>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >> >>ROTFL! It's listed as a fallacy, the "Questionable Analogy" > > It's the definition which describes analogies, and > the form I've provided is exactly as written and which > you wrongly claimed was flawed. It's listed as a ****ing fallacy you nitwit. Maybe the fact that it's listed on the website fallacyfiles.org should have tipped you off, as well as the fact that he *says* it's a fallacy. Think about it for a while, (A) can be like (B), that does NOT mean that if (B) has property (P) that (A) must have it. The statement (A) is like (B) is not definitive, it's inconclusive, therefore it allows for each to have properties not possessed by the other. That's why that form of logic is a listed as a fallacy. > . > [Exposition: > This is a very common fallacy, HELLO! a_very_common_fallacy > but "False Analogy", > its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are > neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees > from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.] > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html > > Learn these terms and expressions before blurting > out they are false or flawed, because all you're > doing is making a fool of yourself by revealing you > don't know what the Hell you're talking about. ROTFL! You're in rare form tonight. >>> You clearly don't know what you're talking about >>> while trying to discuss these terms. >>> >>>>A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >>>>property P. >>> >>> hah hah hah >> >>A is like B, both are 2005 Honda Civics >>B is red >>Therefore, A is red. >> >>Flawed or not? > > That pile of crap doesn't follow the form in which > analogies are laid out. It's EXACTLY in the form you pasted from *fallacyfiles.org* > For your analogy to work > you need to put it in the correct form, and using > the information you've supplied would give us; > > (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic is like (B) a red 2005 > Honda Civic. So far so good > (B) has property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. Why are you making (P) the same as (A) and (B)? (P) is a *property* of (B), not the same as it. > Therefore, (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic has > property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. > > As you can see, rather than form an analogy you're > merely saying that they're exactly the same. You > haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. You just did that right in front of me, then accused me of it. That's a new trick. You quoted a fallacy thinking it was a valid form of analogy, it's not, the form is a "False Analogy" just as I said. I think about things when I read them, you don't. You blew it, big time. You just disproved your own argument. > >>>>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>>>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>>>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>>>>> be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>>>>>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>>>>>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>>>>>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>>>>>> it contradicts itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that >>>>>>killing >>>>>>an >>>>>>animal for food is a "wrong". >>>>> >>>>> There's no mention about killing animals for food in that >>>>> analogy, dummy. Try something else. >>>> >>>>I assume >>> >>> You assumed wrongly. >> >>You're an idiot. > > Dutch, you really do need to study these simple terms > before jumping in and declaring that they are false or > that someone has used them wrongly. Blurting "false" > or "Your proposition presumes that which it attempts > to prove" isn't good enough without giving your reason > for why you've blurted it out. You've got to do better > than that. Yeah right... I'd laugh again, but I don't want to kick you while you're down. Aren't you skilled at math or programming or something? Why don't you go and prove your competence there? You have none here. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 00:30:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:01:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:33:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:58:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>> <restore snip> >>>>>> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >>>>>> be wronged by them. >>>>> >>>>>That statement says nothing, it's circular. >>>> >>>> Statements aren't circular, you imbecile; arguments are, >>>> and only when a premise of that argument is repeated >>>> as the conclusion rather than drawn from it by inference. >>>> You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. >>> >>>Your statement/argument, as you please, is circular >> >> Then show where my premise is repeated as the conclusion >> rather than drawn from it by inference. > >I did No, you didn't. > you snipped it No, I didn't. > probably without reading it. There was nothing to read. >> If I were to have >> written, "humans hold rights because we are humans and >> hold rights", then you might have a case, but my statement >> doesn't do anything like that at all. > >It does exactly that No, it doesn't. You don't even understand what a circular argument is. > except it doesn't simply repeat the same phrase Then it isn't circular, you stupid imbecile. A conclusion is drawn from the premises of an argument by inference. It may appear that a premise has been repeated to those who don't understand logical deduction, and it has to be that way else the conclusion is a non sequitur. Learn these terms and stop making a fool of yourself. >> Stop trying to use terms >> that you clearly don't understand, because you're making a >> fool of yourself and wasting my time while I have to then >> explain them to you. > >Don't keep doing that Then learn, stupid. >>>>>> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >>>>>> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >>>>>> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. >>>>> >>>>>You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate >>>>>others, >>>>>they aren't, >>>> >>>> False. >>>> >>>>>it's the rights that do that. >>>> >>>> Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared >>> >>>That's untrue, we recognize basic rights in people in comas who can do >>>none >>>of those things. >> >> They are still declared by other rights holders on their behalf. > >Exactly Right. >> You just don't get it, dummy? > >Yes, I do get it pretty well You don't get it at all. You're incredibly stupid. Rights are declared by us and on behalf of others that hold the same properties I've indicated above. >>>>>> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >>>>>> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >>>>>> also rights bearers. >>>>> >>>>>The logic is flawed, you have presumed that which you set out to >>>>>establish. >>>> >>>> Is that your stock response to everything for the day, >>>> or do you have another one to blurt out without >>>> offering any reasoning behind it? >>> >>>I have given reasoning, I demonstrated that both of your premises were >>>invalid. >> >> No, you haven't even indicated the premises, let alone >> demonstrate that two of them are invalid. > >I demonstrated that everything you're saying is bullshit. No, you've merely shown that you don't understand the terms and that you're a useless time-waster. >>>>>>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>>>>>> A is like B. >>>>>>>> B has property P. >>>>>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>>>> >>>>>Also flawed. >>>> >>>> A is like B. >>>> B has property P. >>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >>> >>>ROTFL! It's listed as a fallacy, the "Questionable Analogy" >> >> It's the definition which describes analogies, and >> the form I've provided is exactly as written and which >> you wrongly claimed was flawed. > >It's listed as a ****ing fallacy you nitwit. An analogy is NOT a fallacy. >> but "False Analogy", >> its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are >> neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees >> from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.] >> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >> >> Learn these terms and expressions before blurting >> out they are false or flawed, because all you're >> doing is making a fool of yourself by revealing you >> don't know what the Hell you're talking about. > >ROTFL! You're in rare form tonight. It's first thing in the morning for me in the UK. My first post today was at 7:15am, and now it's close to 9:30am. >>>> You clearly don't know what you're talking about >>>> while trying to discuss these terms. >>>> >>>>>A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >>>>>property P. >>>> >>>> hah hah hah >>> >>>A is like B, both are 2005 Honda Civics >>>B is red >>>Therefore, A is red. >>> >>>Flawed or not? >> >> That pile of crap doesn't follow the form in which >> analogies are laid out. > >It's EXACTLY in the form you pasted from *fallacyfiles.org* Nonsense. An analogy is written in the form; A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >> For your analogy to work >> you need to put it in the correct form, and using >> the information you've supplied would give us; >> >> (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic is like (B) a red 2005 >> Honda Civic. > >So far so good No, it isn't. [No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy.] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html Your objects are the same; a red 2005 Honda Civic, and their relation is one of identity, not analogous. You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. >> (B) has property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. > >Why are you making (P) the same as (A) and (B)? Because they ARE the same. Both object are red 2005 Honda Civics. >> Therefore, (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic has >> property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. >> >> As you can see, rather than form an analogy you're >> merely saying that they're exactly the same. You >> haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. > >You just did that right in front of me No. My analogy included two different objects, unlike yours which included two of the same. >>>>>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>>>>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>>>>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>>>>>> be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Excluding animals as rights bearers leaves you with no valid >>>>>>>> principle behind your own declaration as a rights bearer, >>>>>>>> because while our rights are based upon the same properties >>>>>>>> animals hold and our ability to be wronged by moral agents, >>>>>>>> it contradicts itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove, that >>>>>>>killing >>>>>>>an >>>>>>>animal for food is a "wrong". >>>>>> >>>>>> There's no mention about killing animals for food in that >>>>>> analogy, dummy. Try something else. >>>>> >>>>>I assume >>>> >>>> You assumed wrongly. >>> >>>You're an idiot. >> >> Dutch, you really do need to study these simple terms >> before jumping in and declaring that they are false or >> that someone has used them wrongly. Blurting "false" >> or "Your proposition presumes that which it attempts >> to prove" isn't good enough without giving your reason >> for why you've blurted it out. You've got to do better >> than that. > >Yeah right... Yes, damn right. I'm not here to teach you these terms and expressions, so learn them yourself before butting in and making a fool of yourself. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 00:30:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >>>>>>> We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can >>>>>>> be wronged by them. [..] >>>>Your statement/argument, as you please, is circular [..] > A conclusion > is drawn from the premises of an argument by inference. > It may appear that a premise has been repeated to those > who don't understand logical deduction, and it has to > be that way else the conclusion is a non sequitur. Learn > these terms and stop making a fool of yourself. You didn't draw any conclusion, you repeated the same idea in different terminology. You compounded the error by trying to prove it using a faulty analogy. [..] >>>>>>> Our ability to suffer, seek freedom and >>>>>>> pursue happiness obligates moral agents to observe those >>>>>>> properties that inhere in us and act deferentially around us. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are concluding that those inherent properties are what obligate >>>>>>others, >>>>>>they aren't, >>>>> >>>>> False. >>>>> >>>>>>it's the rights that do that. >>>>> >>>>> Without those properties basic rights cannot be declared >>>> >>>>That's untrue, we recognize basic rights in people in comas who can do >>>>none >>>>of those things. >>> >>> They are still declared by other rights holders on their behalf. >> >>Exactly > > Right. So your statement is incorrect. [..] > Rights are > declared by us and on behalf of others that hold the same > properties I've indicated above. People in comas are not seeking freedom, they are granted rights based solely on the fact that they are human. >>>>>>> Being that animals also hold those same properties and can be >>>>>>> wronged by moral agents I can infer by analogy that they must >>>>>>> also rights bearers. There's the fallacy. [..] >>I demonstrated that everything you're saying is bullshit. > > No, you've merely shown that you don't understand the > terms and that you're a useless time-waster. No, see above. Repeating your denials is doing you no good. Trying to turn the attention on me is doing you no good. Snipping away the evidence of your stupidity is doing you no good. You've shot yourself in the foot good and proper this time and it couldn't have happened to nicer fellow. >>>>>>>>> An analogy is written in the form; >>>>>>>>> A is like B. >>>>>>>>> B has property P. >>>>>>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>>>>> >>>>>>Also flawed. >>>>> >>>>> A is like B. >>>>> B has property P. >>>>> Therefore, A has property P. >>>>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >>>> >>>>ROTFL! It's listed as a fallacy, the "Questionable Analogy" >>> >>> It's the definition which describes analogies, and >>> the form I've provided is exactly as written and which >>> you wrongly claimed was flawed. >> >>It's listed as a ****ing fallacy you nitwit. > > An analogy is NOT a fallacy. The form you quote above is a fallacy, that's why it's listed on the fallacy file website. Why did you think it was there? Oh right, you didn't think. >>> but "False Analogy", >>> its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are >>> neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees >>> from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.] >>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html >>> >>> Learn these terms and expressions before blurting >>> out they are false or flawed, because all you're >>> doing is making a fool of yourself by revealing you >>> don't know what the Hell you're talking about. >> >>ROTFL! You're in rare form tonight. > > It's first thing in the morning for me in the UK. > My first post today was at 7:15am, and now > it's close to 9:30am. That's probably part of the reason for this massive blunder. You should use it as an excuse. >>>>> You clearly don't know what you're talking about >>>>> while trying to discuss these terms. >>>>> >>>>>>A *may* be like B, and B may have property P, and A *not* have >>>>>>property P. >>>>> >>>>> hah hah hah >>>> >>>>A is like B, both are 2005 Honda Civics >>>>B is red >>>>Therefore, A is red. >>>> >>>>Flawed or not? >>> >>> That pile of crap doesn't follow the form in which >>> analogies are laid out. >> >>It's EXACTLY in the form you pasted from *fallacyfiles.org* > > Nonsense. An analogy is written in the form; > A is like B. > B has property P. > Therefore, A has property P. > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html A (car #1) is like B (car #2) (both are Honda Civics) B has property P (where P = the colour red) Therefore , A has property P It's a fallacy, 'A' may be black. > >>> For your analogy to work >>> you need to put it in the correct form, and using >>> the information you've supplied would give us; >>> >>> (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic is like (B) a red 2005 >>> Honda Civic. >> >>So far so good > > No, it isn't. > [No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some > difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would > not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the > relation would be one of identity, not analogy.] > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html That's why you cannot conclude "Therefore , A has property P" That's why the form is fallacious. > Your objects are the same; a red 2005 Honda Civic, They are not both red, only B was stated to be red. > and their relation is one of identity, not analogous. > You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. You have balls saying that at this point, I'll grant you that. >>> (B) has property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. >> >>Why are you making (P) the same as (A) and (B)? > > Because they ARE the same. Both object are red 2005 > Honda Civics. Poor try. They are "like" in that they are both 2005 Honda Civics as in statement 1, only B is stated to have property P (red), statement 2. 'A' cannot be concluded to have it. The same holds for B humans, A animals and P rights as in your failed attempted. A is like B. (animals and humans both can suffer) B has property P. (B has rights) Therefore, A has property P. (therefore animals have rights) Same fallacy, if only you'd clued in that was a fallacy before you tried to use it to prove your case.. > >>> Therefore, (A) a red 2005 Honda Civic has >>> property (P) is a red 2005 Honda Civic. >>> >>> As you can see, rather than form an analogy you're >>> merely saying that they're exactly the same. You >>> haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. >> >>You just did that right in front of me > > No. My analogy included two different objects, unlike > yours which included two of the same. Mine included two objects which are "like", as the analogy states. Yours are identical, and even the property P is an identical. It's a ridiculous effort Derek. Your only hope here is to admit you messed up, that would stop the bleeding at least. > >>>>>>>>> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>>>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>>>>>> (B) has property (P) a basis which rests on the >>>>>>>>> ability to be wronged by moral agents. >>>>>>>>> Therefore, (A) the proposition of animal rights, has >>>>>>>>> the property (P) a basis which rests on the ability to >>>>>>>>> be wronged by moral agents. There you commited the fallacy AND the circular logic, and begged the question. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > Learn the terms, you stupid imbecile. Concession accepted. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:36:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
Learn the terms, you stupid imbecile. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >> Learn the terms, you stupid imbecile. > >Concession accepted. You wish. I'm not here to teach you these simple terms. Learn them and stop making a fool of yourself while trying to waste my time. You really are the most stupid person I've ever encountered here or anywhere, and I wont allow your stupidity to waste any more of my time while you wrestle with basic principles you should already be familiar with. Simply blurting out, "That's a fallacy" or "Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove" or "That's circular" without offering any explanation for why you blurted it out might seem like the best way for you to counter an argument, but let me tell you that it certainly is not. Heckling instead of offering proper reasoning is NOT good enough, so pick up a book and try to learn what a fallacy is, then what a circular argument is defined as, and then how to put all you've learned into practice before attempting to butt in where you obviously aren't equipped to hold your own. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snippage... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, > >> >> >> toothpaste, > >> >> >> deoderants, > >> >> >> biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and > >> >> >> probably > >> >> >> most > >> >> >> of the other items on that list. At best it is out of > >> >> >> date. > >> >> >> At > >> >> >> worst, > >> >> >> it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> manufacture > >> >> >> of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? > >> >> >> =============================== > >> >> >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> like > >> >> >> to count bugs too. > >> >> >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of > >> >> >> animals, > >> >> >> it > >> >> >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very > >> >> >> brutally > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> inhumanely. > >> >> > > >> >> > That does not answer my question. > >> >> =========================== > >> >> Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in > >> >> the > >> >> end > >> >> product, > >> > > >> > So as dhld puts it, they do not contribute to the life and > >> > death of farm animals. Therefore his list is false. > > > > No argument? > ========================= > No, his argument is correct. Animals die for ALL those products. > Too bad you're too stupid to understand that. How do these products 'contribute to the life and death of farm animals'? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: > On 1 Oct 2005 08:07:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> On 24 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > >> >> >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildli= fe. > >> >> > > >> >> >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support > >> >> >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to > >> >> >support other forms of life. > >> >> > >> >> The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have > >> >> always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become > >> >> housing areas, and businesses. > >> > > >> >I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic > >> >resource to be appropriated by humans. > >> > >> It is though, regardless if you like it or not. It's only going to= get > >> more so, so you need to accept that. > > > >No. > > Then your input about it is meaningless. How open minded of you ;-) > > >I need to challenge the justice of the assumption. If I can get > >enough people to agree with me, it will change. Accepting is defeatist. > > > >> > >> >To me it is the lifeblood of > >> >the planet, which we should be thrifty with. > >> > > >> >> >If you wish to take moral credit > >> >> >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral > >> >> >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing. > >> >> > >> >> Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that > >> >> are prevented too? > >> > > >> >If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their > >> >lifestyle as you are doing. > >> > >> I really just look at it as trying to consider all the aspects. To= disregard > >> the lives of billions of animals when evaluating human influence on > >> animals seems pathetic, disgusting, inconsiderate, etc, to me, even if > >> I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't try to disregard them. > > > >What I take issue with is that you insist on considering the farm > >animals > >that exist because of humans but also insist on ignoring the wild > >animals > >who don't exist because of exactly the same human activities that cause > >the farm animals to exist. > > They exist in grazing areas more than they would if those areas > are changed to something else. Depends what they are changed to. > >> >> >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount > >> >> >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come > >> >> >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze > >> >> >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist! > >> >> > >> >> =B7 Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> >> (and death) for farm animals, > >> > > >> >True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand? > >> > >> You would have to consider the lives of those animals to be > >> significant, in order to understand. If you can't see how they are > >> significant, how could you understand any significance they > >> have regarding human influence on animals? > >> > >> >> but even then they would have > >> >> to avoid the following in order to be successful: > >> >> > >> >> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, > >> >> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, > >> >> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, > >> >> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, > >> >> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, > >> >> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, > >> >> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, > >> >> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid, > >> >> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks, > >> >> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable > >> >> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, > >> >> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, > >> >> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and > >> >> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, > >> >> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings > >> > > >> >It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants, > >> >biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most > >> >of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst, > >> >it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the > >> >manufacture > >> >of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? > >> > >> I don't know. But I trust that the people who put the list together > >> do know or they wouldn't have made it. > > > >"I found it on the internet. It must be true! :-) > > Give me some reason to consider your opinion about it. As yet I > have only reason to doubt you. I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm asking you to justify your distrust of the "suitable for vegans" logo that can be found on samples of many products you claim vegans must avoid if they wish to avoid contributing to the life and death of farm animals. > > >> Actually that's from more > >> than one list. In order to convince me that there are no animal > >> by-products in those items you would need to tell me which animal > >> parts were used in which processes in the past and why, what they > >> have been replaced with and why, and what is now being done with > >> those by-products if they are really no longer being used in the > >> manufacturing processes of such products any more. > > > >Alternatively you could go down to your local wholefood shop and > >check the labels. You will almost certainly find soaps, deoderants > >toothpastes and b12 supplements that are labelled as "suitable > >for vegans". Do you the manufacturers of these products breaking > >the law by lying while the people who posted your lists to the > >internet are telling the truth? > > I believe they tell the truth. Why do you believe something that is so easily refuted? If the sources you cite are so reputable, why not declare them? > You do try to create false impressions, > and I know that to be fact. For example: you're dishonestly trying to > create the false impression that veg*ns don't contribute to animal > by-products in any items, if they avoid contributing to them in a few > items. That claim is simply laughable. Nothing I have written implies that. > >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >> >> slaughters, > >> > > >> >A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating. > >> >No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur. > >> > >> Are you saying you don't understand how humans influence > >> which cows are inseminated by which bulls? > > > >No. I'm saying that humans are not needed to enable bulls to > >inseminate cows. > > > >> If you don't, it's > >> really pretty scary to think about people like you trying to have > >> an influence on farm animals. > > > >Why? > > Because ignorance can make things worse. > > >> Wow, it is scary to think about > >> "ARAs" having an influence on farm animals. And medical > >> research. And...LOL...Animal Welfare...lol... Damn. > >> > >> >> and the animals live and die as a result of it > >> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >> >> future. > >> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products > >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and > >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. =B7 > >> > > >> >This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into > >> >question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm > >> > > >> >"Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in > >> >ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million > >> >hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing > >> >vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet = of > >> >ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in > >> >the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save > >> >the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7). > >> > > >> >Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with > >> >ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed > >> >identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop > >> >and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare -- > >> >the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly > >> >compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how > >> >many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of > >> >animals killed per consumer. > >> > > >> >Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop > >> >production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). > >> > >> I believe he's being a great deal overly generous with that estima= te. > >> How do grazing cattle kill animals? > > > >Having now read Davis' orginial article, I see that he basically > >plucked > >his figures out of thin air > > Some meat involves much fewer animal deaths than some types > of vegetable products. You have proven that you don't care. How on Earth did you reach that conclusion? > That's > all there is to that for you apparently.. > > >and therefore the attempt, by the article > >above, > >to use his figures to demonstrate the superiority of crops over GFCs is > > > >bogus. > > > >> Compare that to how farm machincery > >> kills animals. I hate to bog you down, but another thing to consider--= or > >> maybe not in your case--is how much life is involved. Even though a mu= ch > >> higher percentage of animals are likely to be killed in crop fields th= an in > >> grazing areas, their numbers could still be low when much fewer animals > >> live in crop fields to begin with. > >> > >> >If this > >> >is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many > >> >hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a > >> >vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop > >> >production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and > >> >one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amou= nt > >> >of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on > >> >as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as > >> >pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for > >> >grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain > >> >the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a > >> >vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, > >> > >> I don't believe that, or the rest of it either. What I believe is = that vegans > >> don't care if rice milk causes a lot more cds than grass raised milk, = and > >> that tofu causes a lot more cds than grass raised beef. > >> > >> >a > >> >lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style > >> >omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, > >> >we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number > >> >of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population." > >> > > >> >I would be interested to read your response. > >> > >> Cattle don't kill many animals by eating grass. Many animals are k= illed > >> when the ground it plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with chemicals, > >> the crops are harvested, and whatever wildlife manage to survive have > >> lost their home and shelter. In the case of rice, the flooding and dra= ining > >> of fields also kills animals, as well as the other things mentioned. > >> > >> >> >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration > >> >> >> >is the real distortion of reality. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I most certainly take them into consideration. > >> >> > > >> >> >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence > >> >> >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without > >> >> >human help? > >> >> > >> >> =B7 The meat industry includes habitats in which a small > >> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those > >> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant > >> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also > >> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg > >> >> that begin their particular existence. > >> > > >> >The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual > >> >activities that do not require human intervention. > >> > >> Have you figured out how humans influence life for any > >> animals yet? > > > >They influence which bulls get to father the cows they approproate > >ownership over. > > Very impressive. Thank you. > > >They do this by preventing them from coming into > >contact with other bulls. You seem to think they therefore deserve > >moral credit for bringing the calves into existence. > > Their lives should be given as much or more consideration than > their deaths, regardless of your own personal mental problems > about moral credit or whatever. I don't have a problem with you considering potential lives as long as you consider the potential lives that could have occured as well as the potential lives that could have not occured. > >> >> Those animals will > >> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food. > >> >> > >> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild > >> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely > >> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few > >> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals > >> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers > >> >> for their existence. =B7 > >> > > >> >The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers > >> >of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent > >> >variables > >> > >> Here's a clue for you: domestic animals would not even > >> exist if humans didn't influence which animals breed together. > > > >And now here's a clue for you: cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, ducks > >etc. existed long before humans began to influence which animals > >bred together and still do exist in the wild, where humans have no > >influence over this. > > Wild cattle, muskrats, horses, jellyfish, ducks etc. are of no > consideration. My point exactly. You only seem to 'care' about farm animals. > >> >> >> I've pointed out > >> >> >> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and > >> >> >> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in > >> >> >> crop filds. > >> >> > > >> >> >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are > >> >> >considering the wrong eqaution. > >> >> > >> >> I consider more than one. > >> > > >> >OK. > >> > >> Wow, that's a surprise. > >> > >> >> >If some of the land used to graze > >> >> >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in > >> >> >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably > >> >> >result in more wildlife in total. > >> >> > >> >> That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to > >> >> grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on > >> >> resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think > >> >> about it. > >> > > >> >The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual lev= el > >> >it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a > >> >great > >> >deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land > >> >use > >> >and allow nature her fair share. > >> > >> $$$ > >> > >> >> >YMMD. > >> >> > > >> >> >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only > >> >> >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and no= t also > >> >> >> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? > >> >> > > >> >> >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any > >> >> >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your > >> >> >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a > >> >> >loan to its farmer. > >> >> > >> >> I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of > >> >> humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other > >> >> people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no > >> >> one has suggested a better way yet. > >> > > >> >It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the > >> >idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer. > >> > >> Well they do. So do pigs and chickens. And turkeys. If you > >> don't like the fact, it is still a fact which you just don't happen > >> to like. > > > >It is not a fact that they owe their lives to the farmer > > Yes it is. > > >in any > >morally significant way. > > I'm really getting sick of such selfishness. You mean the selfish way that you advocate thinking about land and animals? Yes, I'm getting pretty sick of it too. > >> It won't go away though. It will never go away. Even > >> if I learn to hate it myself--which so far it's just a fact to me which > >> I don't especially like or hate--it will still remain a fact, and I su= re > >> hope I will always be able to appreciate that very basic and > >> very significant aspect of human influence on animals. Accepting > >> the fact is a very necessary basic in regards to whether or not > >> what we do is cruel to the animals, and I know it is. I'm very > >> surprised and disappointed at the number of people who don't. > > > >The reason why most people don't recognize the fact is that > > most people are too selfish and inconsiderate to even *try* > considering what the animals get from the relationship. What the animal might get in terms of vetinery care, shelter etc. is relevant. The claim that the farmer is benefiting the animal by giving it a chance of life is specious. > >the > >logic behind seems awfully selective and self-serving. > > But certainly not as much as the selfish, inconsiderate, > deliberate disregard for the lives of billions of animals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote >You wish. Heh.. not really. I knew you couldn't admit to me that you ****ed up, you have too much ego involved. You may study the terminology somewhat more than I, but you just don't grasp the basic principles behind this stuff. You're trying to use them to defend your arguments, and they never work. This latest debacle is just the most recent example of something you've been doing for years. If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid form.. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. It is an obvious fallacy, as I clearly demonstrated. And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them" is a hollow, self-evident, circular statement. By circular I mean that the second part restates the first, and vice-versa. The explanation is that "holding rights against someone" and "being able to be wronged by someone" say the same thing. I wrong someone *is* just another way of saying I violate a right they hold against me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote dh@. wrote: >The reason why most people don't recognize the fact is that > most people are too selfish and inconsiderate to even *try* > considering what the animals get from the relationship. If you think about what someone or something else is *getting* from a relationship with you, that is in fact thinking about what *you* are *giving* them. The only reason one would do that would be to extract something for yourself, gratification, justification, or something. That's not unselfishness, it's selfishness, because thinking about what *you* are doing for another cannot benefit them. The only type of unselfish thought you can have towards them would be to think about what *more* you can do for them. --->What the animal might get in terms of vetinery care, shelter etc. is relevant. The claim that the farmer is benefiting the animal by giving it a chance of life is specious. "The Logic of the Larder" http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf is a religious belief on his part. He can't see past it any more than a devoted ARA can see hunting as a moral way to obtain food. And there's that damned quoted printable text format again, I wonder what causes it to occur sometimes and not others? I will email Google. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >>You wish. > >Heh.. not really. I knew you couldn't admit to me that you ****ed up, We'll see. >you have too much ego involved. You may study the terminology >somewhat more than I, but you just don't grasp the basic principles >behind this stuff. We'll see. >You're >trying to use them to defend your arguments, and they never work. This >latest debacle is just the most recent example of something you've been >doing for years. > >If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid >form.. > > A is like B. > B has property P. > Therefore, A has property P. > >It is an obvious fallacy No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. [Arguments from Analogy: Form: 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. 2. B has property P. So, A has property P.] http://tinyurl.com/7req4 Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon is a fallacy; A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. They're exactly the same. You're an imbecile. Here's another (below). [Argument from analogy An argument from analogy is an argument that has the form: All P are like Q Q has such-and-such characteristic. Thus P has such-and-such characteristic.] http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleld.../logiglos.html Now substitute the terms from the first onto the one above and we have; All A are like B B has such-and-such characteristic. ( the fallacy files call it P ) Thus A has such-and-such characteristic. (the fallacy files call it P) Are you getting this yet, dummy? > as I clearly demonstrated. All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent. >And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged >by them" is a hollow, self-evident, circular statement. By circular I mean >that the second part restates the first If it did, then the premise would be written; "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we hold rights against moral agents." My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral agents. I'm not here to teach you these simple terms. Learn them and stop making a fool of yourself while trying to waste my time. You really are the most stupid person I've ever encountered here or anywhere, and I wont allow your stupidity to waste any more of my time while you wrestle with basic principles you should already be familiar with. Simply blurting out, "That's a fallacy" or "Your proposition presumes that which it attempts to prove" or "That's circular" without offering any explanation for why you blurted it out might seem like the best way for you to counter an argument, but let me tell you that it certainly is not. Heckling instead of offering proper reasoning is NOT good enough, so pick up a book and try to learn what a fallacy is, then what a circular argument is defined as, and then how to put all you've learned into practice before attempting to butt in where you obviously aren't equipped to hold your own. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>You wish. >> >>Heh.. not really. I knew you couldn't admit to me that you ****ed up, > > We'll see. That'll be the day. >>you have too much ego involved. You may study the terminology >>somewhat more than I, but you just don't grasp the basic principles >>behind this stuff. > > We'll see. You're a glutton for punishment. >>You're >>trying to use them to defend your arguments, and they never work. This >>latest debacle is just the most recent example of something you've been >>doing for years. >> >>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid >>form.. >> >> A is like B. >> B has property P. >> Therefore, A has property P. >> >>It is an obvious fallacy > > No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using > analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will > find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. > > [Arguments from Analogy: > Form: > 1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. > 2. B has property P. > So, A has property P.] > http://tinyurl.com/7req4 The following quote from that page describes the above set of statements, "An invalid has this essential featu it is not necessary that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true." In the analogy above, even though 1. and 2. are true, it is not necessary that the conclusion is true. A may be_like B *and yet* NOT have all the properties of B. The red Honda is like the black Honda, but one does not have the property red. > Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon > is a fallacy; > > A is like B. > B has property P. > Therefore, A has property P. > > They're exactly the same. You're an imbecile. Here's > another (below). Yes, they are the same, a fallacy. > [Argument from analogy > > An argument from analogy is an argument that has the form: > All P are like Q > Q has such-and-such characteristic. > Thus P has such-and-such characteristic.] > http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleld.../logiglos.html From that page.. "One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy. It is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious..." You must *examine* the analogical form critically. > Now substitute the terms from the first onto the one > above and we have; > All A are like B > B has such-and-such characteristic. ( the fallacy files call it P ) > Thus A has such-and-such characteristic. (the fallacy files call it P) > > Are you getting this yet, dummy? I got it long ago Derek. A is like B (Derek (B) is like his twin brother (A)) true B has the property P (Derek is confined to a wheelchair) true Therefore Derek's brother is confined to a wheelchair. false Does that necessarily follow? No, therefore it's an invalid argument from analogy. If you had said this.. A is identical to B in all respects B has the property P therefore A has the property P Bingo, valid conclusion, your first premise in this case was sufficiently definitive. >> as I clearly demonstrated. > > All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the > proper form to use when arguing from analogy, and that > you're ignorance has made you arrogantly incompetent. Never mind the form, examine the *substance* of the analogy logically. That's what you failed to do. Stop hunting through the internet for support for your mistakes and use your own logic. >>And "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be >>wronged >>by them" is a hollow, self-evident, circular statement. By circular I mean >>that the second part restates the first > > If it did, then the premise would be written; > > "We hold rights against moral agents on the > basis that we hold rights against moral agents." That's not circular, it's just absurdly repetititious and self-evident, like y = y. > My premise doesn't do that. It proposes that we hold rights > against moral agents on the basis that we can be wronged > by them, not on the basis that we hold rights against moral > agents. That's not a basis, or a conclusion of any kind, it's a rewording of the premise. Holding rights against another and being capable of being wronged by another are one and the same idea. You are not giving any information from which to draw a conclusion. If you had said "We hold rights against moral agents on the basis that we can be *harmed* by them" then THAT is not circular, because holding a right against another and being vulnerable to harm by them are different concepts. I don't necessarily agree with the statement, but at least it says something. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? | General Cooking | |||
| More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! | General Cooking | |||
| OT Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
