 |
|
| 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 |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:52:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:47:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:50:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>> >>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>> >>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>sentences. >>>> >>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>> laws protect them? >>> >>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >> >> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." > >I would still agree with that. Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* about legal rights in that above statement at the top of this post; you were talking about your moral right to be free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]". "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right, that's how we know to create legal rights. Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju From those, "when looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]" to see if you have the legal right and thus the moral right to be free from their assault, any absence of those laws and sanctions would tell you you had no rights against them, by your false reckoning. >> >>> [start Harrison] >> >>> I don't believe any of us have rights other than those >> >>> provided by law. >> >> >> >>We're talking about *moral* rights, >> > >> > There are none. >> >> It figures that you would think that. Every legal right is >> preceded by a moral right, that's how we know to create >> legal rights. >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right Then you cannot claim that your above statement at the top of this post excluded moral rights. You falsely measure yours to see if they exist by seeing if laws and sanctions against others are in place to protect them. >> It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are >> in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every >> legal right is preceded by a moral right." It's also clear that >> you DO believe your legal right to be free from assault >> is preceded by a moral right to be free from assault, > >Sounds ok so far Then you were wrong to say that you weren't addressing moral rights in your above statement at the top of this post. "It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." You've just replied to that with, "Sounds ok so far." >> and >> that if no laws exist to protect that right, you don't have >> the moral right to be free from assault. > >That is an obvious fallacy. It's the logical conclusion to your argument. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." According to those, if "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." and "[you] measure your right to be free from physical assault by looking to see if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]", you would have to falsely conclude that you have no moral right to be free from their abuse if there were no laws and sanctions against them. It's as simple and as wrong as that. >Denying the Antecedent >A= moral right >B= legal right > >A therefore B >Not B, therefore >Not A THAT denies the consequent, you stupid dummy. You clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding even the of simplest syllogisms. If we were to put you argument into a syllogistic framework it would go like this. According to your statements; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." we have; 1) If x holds a legal right (antecedent), then x holds a moral right (consequent). 2) x doesn't hold a legal right (denies the antecedent (invalid)) therefore 3) x doesn't hold a moral right. YOUR argument does deny the antecedent, but not in the form you tried but failed to describe. How can you not know that your above example denies the consequent rather than denying the antecedent? Why, after all these years on these news groups are you still so ignorant where simple syllogisms are concerned? I'll tell you why - it's because you're a slacker, Ditch - a lazy, idle slacker. >>>>>If laws against assault >>>>>imply legal rights, then I conclude that laws against abuse do also. >>>> >>>> Laws don't codify a right, and conversely, the lack of >>>> any laws protecting people doesn't mean to say those >>>> people don't hold rights. >>> >>>That's basically false unless you are equivocating back and forth between >>>legal and moral rights. >> >> No, it's perfectly true. > >Please don't hack my sentences apart I do what I please, and asking me not to trim the rubbish from your sentences while you snip whole posts away in sheer embarrassment is a bit rich coming from you, Ditch. There's a whole argument at the bottom of this post that you've repeatedly snipped at every turn in high dudgeon to avoid being seen as the stupid liar you are, so don't go telling me not to snip, especially when my snips are but to cut away your stupid snides and petty quips. I leave what's relevant, and if asked to respond to what I've snipped, I do. I don't run away like you and rick do at every turn when asked to explain my position. >>>>>> According to Dutch, he only has a right to be free from >>>>>> assault if laws are in place to stop others assaulting him, >>>>> >>>>>Right, I only have a "legal right" based on those laws. >>>> >>>> No, you have a moral right against assault, even if laws >>>> protecting that right don't exist. >>> >>>I wasn't addressing the issue of "moral rights". >> >> You're lying again, Ditch. >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >You're equivocating again. No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights when addressing legal rights. >> Being that you believe "Every legal right is preceded by a >> moral right .." how can you honestly say that you wasn't >> addressing moral rights when advocating legal rights? > >Because I was talking about the connection between laws and legal rights. We all know the connection between laws and legal rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by pretending you were trying to make a connection that's already established and apparent. Now that you've declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop lying. >>>>>> and he uses that same rule to reason whether animals >>>>>> hold rights as well. >>>>> >>>>>So I do. Show how the reasoning is flawed if you disagree. >>>> >>>> If your rule dictates that a person only holds a right >>>> against another because the law says so, >>> >>>A legal right, not a moral right. >> >> Your constant switching between moral and legal rights >> doesn't help you here, either. > >You are either confused or equivocating. No, but you've been trying to equivocate between the two from the start, unsuccessfully. >>>> you would >>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>> as good. >>> >>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that moral right. You, on the other hand have it the other way around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against those who would assault you, when looking, you would have no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >> be free from persecution and grim experiments. > >They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another because the law says so, those Jews had no moral right not to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse, and Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit because their law said so. >> You would >> have to conclude that women held no rights against their >> husbands who were legally allowed to beat them with a >> stick no thicker than the width of their thumb. You would >> have to conclude that men had the right to beat them. Your >> reasoning holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the >> ages as good. > >"Good"?? Now you are referring to "moral rights". Always have been, while you try to get some wriggle room by jumping back and forth between legal and moral rights. >>>>>> Take foxes, for example. Now that >>>>>> fox hunting with hounds has been banned in Britain he >>>>>> believes they hold a right against man not to be hunted >>>>>> with his hounds. Read the discussion I had with him on >>>>>> this issue where he concedes, "It is reasonable to say >>>>>> that they hold rights against fox hunters though." >>>>> >>>>>Very good. >>>> >>>> Then, do you believe that the fox didn't hold the right >>>> to be free from abuse until new laws were enacted to >>>> protect it from that abuse? If the laws were relaxed >>>> or repealed, would you then say that the fox no longer >>>> held the right to be free from abuse? >>> >>>Correct, referring to LEGAL RIGHTS. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >a=>b=>c > >Moral rights=>Laws=>Legal rights > >There are an undetermined number of 'a', not all of which are followed by >'b', but all the 'b's' are preceded by 'a's' and followed by 'c's'. Crap. How can "Laws" come before "Legal rights", you idiot? Laws are put in place after a legal right has been established. Not the other way around. As usual, you have it all backwards. >> According to you, then, if the laws protecting that fox's >> moral right to be free from our abuse are repealed, that >> fox loses its moral right to be free from abuse, first. > >No, it loses it's legal right. The moral right cannot be repealed. Yet further down this page you declare, "Yes it can be violated." You're all over the place, switching from one stance to another whenever the mood takes you. You're also on record saying; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 Society doesn't overrule their inalienable right not to be killed, you idiot, and you've only just finished conceding that by writing, "The moral right cannot be repealed." Make up your dull mind. >> Let's look at another example. > >> "Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of >> extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no >> longer need federal protection there, the Bush >> administration said Thursday. >> .... >> farmers will encounter fewer bureaucratic hurdles in >> dealing with wolves that harass livestock, said Rob >> Anderson, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm >> Bureau. The Minnesota and Wisconsin plans would >> allow limited killing of problem wolves, an issue under >> discussion in Michigan." >> http://tinyurl.com/sxple >> >> According to your rule those protected grey wolves >> once held the moral right not to be killed by us, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..", but >> now their legal right not to be shot by farmers has been >> relaxed, which, according to your rule means they no >> longer have the moral right not to be shot by farmers. > >Legal right. You're trying to equivocate between legal and moral rights again, but that line doesn't get you off the hook. According to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." That being so, when those grey wolves had legal protection it was preceded by a moral right against us not to be shot because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." A moral right, such as the moral right not to be shot is always an inalienable right once declared, whether that right belongs to humans or animals. >> What you need to understand is that the moral right to >> be free from abuse is always an inalienable right; > >I didn't say otherwise You did, and you're just about to again. >> it cannot be violated. > >Yes it can be violated. There it is. Above, when I said "that the moral right to be free from abuse is always an inalienable right", you replied, "I didn't say otherwise.", but now you're saying that they aren't inalienable and CAN be violated. You're all over the place and don't have a clue. Inalienable rights are by definition inalienable, meaning they can't be violated, you stupid imbecile. >> Clearly, then, your understanding >> of the meaning of rights is flawed if you believe laws >> codify them. > >Clearly it is *you* with the flawed understanding. No, my understanding of rights is perfectly clear. You, on the other hand, believe that laws codify a moral right, and that if no laws exist protecting that right, then that moral right doesn't exist. Look below this paragraph where you blurt out, "Laws are evidence of rights." If laws are evidence of rights you would have to concede that Nazis held the right to experiment on Jews, and that the Jews held no moral right to deny them their trespass upon them. >>>>>> [start Dutch] >>>>>> >>>>Laws are evidence of rights. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs >>>>>> >>> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made >>>>>> >>> illegal, dummy? >>>>> >>>>>Here you built an absurd strawman that animals ought to be moral agents. >>>> >>>> False. I've never suggested or implied that animals >>>> ought to be moral agents. You're lying now. >>> >>>Then what did you mean by "foxes hold a right against hound dogs" ? >> >> That word string is part of a whole sentence asking >> you if you believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs >> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. >> I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against >> hound dogs. Learn to read. > >Your statement intoduced the idea. No, my question asked if YOU believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against hound dogs. Learn to read. >>>>>> >>Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who >>>>>> >>are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they >>>>>> >>hold rights against fox hunters though. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > Well done; you've just acknowledged that all animals >>>>>> > currently protected by anti-abuse laws hold rights >>>>>> > against us. >>>>> >>>>>Which is what I said in the first place. >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> No, > >Yes I just knew you'd have no option but to snip my reply away in embarrassment. In fact you've snipped the entire last half of my post away, leaving everything unanswered for at least the second time. <re-re-restore> No, that's not what you said in the first place. What you said in the first place was; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >> That's what I have been saying all along. >> [end] >> Dutch Jun 5 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f94l7 That above statement is clearly a lie when we look at your other statements rejecting the proposition of animal rights. It's NOT what you've been "saying ALL along", so stop lying. I can dig out even more statements from you rejecting the proposition if you want me to. >> And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from >> causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, >> he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals >> don't hold rights against us after all, > >They don't They do, but according to you; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Now match that statement to mine concerning your rule; "And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit." > Should we view tham as holding moral rights against us? Yes, we should. >That's another question, one I would not take up with you That's a lie, seeing as you've only just finished asking it. >> and that we can use them any way we see fit. > >We don't "use" animals killed collaterally. I didn't say that we use them. What I DID say was that, according to your rule, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit. Statements from you show this to be a correct representation of your position; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Can you see the idiocy of your position? To paraphrase; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." All I did was exchange the term "animal" for "human", leaving the rule itself in place. Now, if we look at another statement from you telling us how rights work; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 and then apply your rule, "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." the idiocy of your position regarding rights becomes clear. >> He's all over the place and doesn't >> have a clue, and that's why he feels "irrevocably indebted" to >> the animals he eats but can't explain why. > >I did explain. No, you whiffed off and snipped every post instead of explaining your position, only to now insist that you did explain it. >They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs. But you've only just insisted that they hold rights against us. How can an animal hold rights against if in fact "They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs"? >What greater service could an animal do? The animal doesn't "do" anything, let alone provide you a service. You're still caught up in agreement with Harrison's argument that insists animals enter into a bargain with us. You still believe that, "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David (Harrison) says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >> He's totally lost and confused about the whole thing. > >You've been equivocating between legal rights and moral rights No, I didn't even mention legal rights in my post to Harrison. <end restore> You snipped all that away in embarrassment because you're an unethical liar and a fraud, Ditch. You have no reason to snip that evidence of your lies and stupidity away other than the fact that you simply can't bear to be seen that way. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:49:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>I snipped it away >>>> >>>> Yes >>> >>>Exactly, because it's crap. >> >> Rather, it shows that you cannot defend your position > >I have addressed every old quote in there No, that's a lie. You've whiffed off from the whole post many times now without addressing ANY of it, you lying, no-fight slacker. <RE-RE-RESTORE> Rather, it shows that you cannot defend your position and lies against me. You snip it all away because it embarrasses you. Read it all again and see the hiding I'm giving you. <restore> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:50:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >"Derek" wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:41:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" wrote: >>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:27:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:03:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >>>>>>>>>irrevocably in their debt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Priceless! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> How does killing animals for food place meat eaters in the >>>>>> debt of those animals, Dutch? >>>>> >>>>>Those animals live and die to sustain us. >>>> >>>> But if they hold no right against your interest in slaughtering >>>> them for food, what are you indebted to concerning that >>>> animal if not a moral judgment that rises up against you >>>> for taking it's life capriciously? >>> >>>It's not a matter of rights, it's a question of attitude. When you >>>receive something beneficial you ought to be grateful for it >> >> How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be >> most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or >> receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by >> that animal in the first place? > >You don't "own" your life, it's not a possession. I do own my own life, and it's a possession that I have a right to hold. Now, back on track, "How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by that animal in the first place? >>> not attempt to claim a moral victory as ****wit does. >> >> Harrison feels grateful to the animals he eats, as you do, >> and grateful that they got to experience life while growing >> fat enough to make a meal of, so explain why Harrison is >> wrong to feel grateful while you are right, Dutch. > >Harrison feels animals owe *us* a debt of gratitude And so do you, to fulfil their part in a "mutually beneficial contract" between us and them, as your quotes clearly show. "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 You're in complete agreement with Harrison, and always have been. >>> Some people thank God when they sit down to >>>dinner, I think it makes more sense to thank the animals. >> >> What do you thank them for if you're of the belief that >> animals have no right to life, Dutch, and why don't you >> answer my above question? What are you indebted to >> concerning the animals you eat - what do you owe them? > >Thanks How can you thank an animal for its life if it didn't already own it and have a right to hold it? >>>>>How can we NOT consider ourselves indebted to them? >>>> >>>> You tell me how they can - that's the position you need to >>>> support now you've put yourself in it. It's not up to me to >>>> explain how they can't while you delay explaining how they >>>> can. It's your claim that "The fact that we raise them to kill >>>> them for food places us [meat eaters] irrevocably in their debt.", >>>> so explain precisely what about the animal they're indebted >>>> to, and why meat eaters are indebted to *it* in the first place. >>> >>>I'm thankful to the animal, for it's life, >> >> How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it >> doesn't already have a right to that life? > >I don't look at it that way. Well I'm now forcing you to look at it that way, whether you like it or not, so I'll ask again, " How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it doesn't already have a right to that life? >>>and for the sustenance that >>>provided. Aboriginal cultures do something similar in their ceremonies. >> >> Rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived >> and died, ****wit, > >Whow would you know anything about rational people Derek? I know that rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived and died for them, as you and Harrison do. >> although it is amusing to see you compare >> your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your >> point accepted. > >I don't care if you accept it or not. I don't, but like I said, "it is amusing to see you compare your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your point accepted." >>>>>> According to you, "By treating >>>>>> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only approach >>>>>> making it a square deal, but we can never get there.", so tell >>>>>> me what meat eaters are indebted to. >>>>> >>>>>The animals. >>>> >>>> Yes, we've established that, but what is it about them that >>>> meat eaters are irrevocably indebted to? >>> >>>Everything they provide. >> >> You've only just finished explaining to me that you're >> "thankful to the animal for it's life", as well as everything >> they provide, and you're also of the opinion that "The fact >> that we raise them to kill them for food places us (meat >> eaters) irrevocably in their debt." In short, then, you're >> irrevocably indebted to the animals you eat because you >> take their lives which you know they have a right to, and >> this brings us to your earlier quotes regarding your belief >> in animal rights. >> >> "I am an animal rights believer." >> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 >> >> and >> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". >> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our >> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value >> the animal or species." >> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh >> >> and >> >> "Rights for animals exist because human rights >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for >> animals would not exist." >> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz >> >> and >> >> "If they are inherent in humans then why are >> they not in some way inherent in all animals? >> I think rights are a human invention which we >> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in >> certain situations to other animals." >> ... >> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought >> to be prohibited from extending some form of >> rights towards animals in their care." >> ... >> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, >> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply >> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways >> within our sphere of influence." >> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb >> >> and >> >> "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar >> way as minor children or people in comas. >> They can hold rights against us, but we can't >> hold rights against them." >> Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx >> >> You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison >> and me have always been telling you, so why deny >> it? > >I don't. You do, and here below are just two quotes to prove it; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 Why do you keep swapping from one position to the other conflicting position all the time? >>>>>> What do meat eaters owe them, >>>>> >>>>>Kindness >>>> >>>> What else do meat eaters owe them as well as kindness? >>> >>>Nothing >> >> That's a lie, because according to you, ""By treating >> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >> approach making it a square deal, but we can never >> get there." That necessarily means that meat eaters >> owe them more than kindness and a humane death, >> and that they'll never be able to repay their debt to >> animals even after being kind to them and giving >> them a humane death, so I ask again, "What else do >> meat eaters owe them as well as kindness?" > >We have nothing more except more kindness. But according to your statement meat eaters owe them more than kindness and a humane death, so what is it? >We remain indebted. If meat eaters remain indebted to the animals they eat, even after affording them kindness and a humane death, then it stands to reason that they owe more to them, according to you, so what is it? >>>> According to you, kindness and a humane killing isn't >>>> enough to make it a square deal with the animals. You >>>> wrote, >>>> "By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we >>>> may only approach making it a square deal, but we can >>>> never get there.", >>>> >>>> so there's more than kindness that owed, so what is it? >>> >>>Nothing, that's all we have to give. >> >> No, there's more, according to your statement. You're >> of the opinion that meat eaters owe them more than a >> humane death and kindness. If meat eaters never even >> "approach making it a square deal" with the animals the >> eat, that necessarily means something more is left owing, >> so what is it? > >It doesn't matter. So says you after being forced to concede yet again that you DO believe animals hold rights against us. Heh heh heh. >>>>>> and being that this debt can never be repaid why >>>>>> is it right and proper to continue eating them, >>>>> >>>>>Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does. >>>> >>>> Then why hurt and kill animals, only to be irrevocably >>>> in their debt? >>> >>>Because the alternative is death >> >> No, that dodge doesn't even follow from the question I >> asked. One can live without causing the deaths of farm >> animals, > >I disagree. Yet you're afraid to explain why. Why don't you explain why one cannot live without causing the deaths of farm animals, Dutch? >> so I'll ask it again; "Why hurt and kill animals, >> only to be irrevocably in their debt?" Also, now you've >> at last conceded that killing animals hurts them, why do >> you continue abusing them in this way after declaring; >> >> "If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware >> that abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit >> in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not >> ask for the abuse. In order to avoid moral complicity >> in such abuse I must stop funding it and find a source >> of meat where no abuse is taking place, or else stop >> eating meat altogether." >> Dutch Jan 31 2005 http://tinyurl.com/c3hvf You haven't addressed this, Dutch. You've conceded that animals are hurt when being killed, and you've declared that if you were to find that animal farming is cruel or abusive you would stop eating meat, yet you still continue to eat it. Look at your quotes below this line which show what a liar you are, Ditch. "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz and "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa >>>> How does it feel to be forever in the >>>> debt of the animals you eat, Dutch? >>> >>>It feels right, >> >> What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase >> your debt for the lives you take while never being able >> to repay what you already owe, Dutch? > >The right to live and thrive and prosper on this earth. One can thrive and prosper on this earth without increasing a debt by taking the lives of farmed animals, as per your argument, so once again, "What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase your debt for the lives you take while never being able to repay what you already owe, Dutch? >>>>>It's proper because it's how animals live, how the biosphere operates. >>>> >>>> No, animal farming cannot be justified by appealing to >>>> nature or how the biosphere operates. >>> >>>Not only animal farming, all impact on animals. Animals impacting other >>>animals *is* how it works, especially wrt humans. >> >> You're still appealing to nature to get your argument >> accepted, and that's not good enough. Read what I >> included in my last post below this sentence to see >> which fallacy you're trying to invoke. > >It's not a fallacy It is, as described below this line. >>>> The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature >>>> The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political >>>> arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy >>>> between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the >>>> natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is >>>> inevitable, because the natural world is similar: >>>> >>>> "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals >>>> struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural >>>> resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership >>>> of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's >>>> how the natural world works." >>>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#natural >>> >>>I wasn't using biology to rationalize capitalism or any other political >>>system. >> >> When attempting to draw an analogy between the principle >> of farming meat for food and some aspect of the natural >> World by stating, "It's proper because it's how animals live", >> you are appealing to nature to get your point accepted as >> true, and that's not acceptable. > >I'm not trying to get anything accepted Yes, you are, and you're appealing to nature to get that point accepted, as shown. >>>> Why do you carry so much guilt and feel so irrevocably >>>> indebted to the animals you eat, Dutch, >>> >>>I don't feel guilt. >> >> Explain the moral principle behind your reasoning that >> compels you to increase your unpaid debts to the animals >> you eat without feeling guilty about taking something you >> don't intend to repay. You've failed to answer this as well. >>>I feel gratitude. >> >> How can you be grateful for their lives if they didn't >> have a right to their lives in the first place, Dutch? > >I explained that above. No, you've merely repeated that you feel gratitude for their lives and deaths without explaining how, when according to you they have no right to their lives and therefore nothing for you to thank them for. >>>> and why do you >>>> criticise others who don't want anything to do with >>>> being indebted to farmed animals? >>> >>>I don't, I have no problem with that at all. >> >> Then you have no argument against those who abstain >> from meat on ethical grounds. > >I don't care what food people abstain from or why, it's none of my business. That's better. Run along now - you're done. <end restore> >LOL You've nothing to laugh about, liar, and snipping the whole post away only shows that you know it. <end re-restore> Keep running, liar. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cruelty of veal? (was: The Logic of Livestock Hatred)
|
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:52:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:47:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:50:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>>> >>>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>>sentences. >>>>> >>>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>>> laws protect them? >>>> >>>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >>> >>> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >>> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." >> >>I would still agree with that. > > Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* > about legal rights in that above statement at the top of > this post; you were talking about your moral right to be > free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if > laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would > assault [you]". I was referring to legal rights in my statement. Laws inform us that we have legal rights. It is true that I believe that from that we can infer that we must have corresponding moral rights, because laws follow a finding of moral rights, but that is not pertinent to my statement. I am simply drawing a conclusion, a parallel. Since laws inform us about legal rights, therefore laws against animal abuse inform us about legal rights of animals. The fact that that leads to the conclusion of moral rights is interesting also, but not part of my argument. The rest of your babbling is meaningless if you don't get the basic meaning of my statement. You sound like a chap with a chip on his shoulder, not someone capable of carrying on a rational conversation. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
I have a little time to attempt to straighten out your confusion..
"Derek" > wrote > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right, that's > how we know to create legal rights. > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > From those, "when looking if laws and sanctions exist > against anyone who would assault [you]" to see if you > have the legal right and thus the moral right to be free > from their assault, any absence of those laws and > sanctions would tell you you had no rights against them, > by your false reckoning. That's a fallacy. Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them, but moral rights can exist with no legal recognition. [..] [..] >>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >>You're equivocating again. > > No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while > advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to > you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", > you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights > when addressing legal rights. I can and I was. I was speaking about the relationship between legal rights and laws. > We all know the connection between laws and legal > rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by > pretending you were trying to make a connection that's > already established and apparent. It's not apparent at all. It is very common to believe that although there are laws protecting animals against abuse, this only indicates a "moral obligation" on humans, *not* a right held by those animals. I don't know another animal rights critic who takes the position I do. > Now that you've > declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." > you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop > lying. I was simply not talking about moral rights, I am referring to the connection between laws and legal rights. If you want to make a logical extrapolation from it, fine, I don't care, but it's not pertinent to the point I made. >>>>>>> and he uses that same rule to reason whether animals >>>>>>> hold rights as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>So I do. Show how the reasoning is flawed if you disagree. >>>>> >>>>> If your rule dictates that a person only holds a right >>>>> against another because the law says so, >>>> >>>>A legal right, not a moral right. >>> >>> Your constant switching between moral and legal rights >>> doesn't help you here, either. >> >>You are either confused or equivocating. > > No, but you've been trying to equivocate between the two > from the start, unsuccessfully. That is an obvious lie, I have clearly been making a point about legal rights from the beginning. >>>>> you would >>>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>>> as good. >>>> >>>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >>> >>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >>Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >>therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. > > Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral > right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that > moral right. No we cannot. Moral rights may exist with no corresponding legal rights. The right of gays to be married was considered a moral right for a long time before it became a legal right. > You, on the other hand have it the other way > around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; > > "I measure my right to be free from physical assault > by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone > who would assault me. > Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp There's nothing about moral rights in that statement. You're equivocating again. > It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against > those who would assault you, when looking, you would have > no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." There's that fallacy again. A moral right may exist without ever being entrenched in law. Minorities held moral rights against discrimination long before any laws were written recognizing those rights as legal rights. I know that I hold a moral right against assault that can never be revoked, even if the government were to repeal laws and take away the legal right. >>> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >>> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >>> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >>> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >> >>They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >>LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. > > That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person > only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another > because the law says so Wrong, the person holds the moral right regardless, they only hold the legal right based on existing law. > those Jews had no moral right not > to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse Same fallacy. The moral right is not dependent on the legal right, it's the reverse, the legal right is dependent on the moral right. I hope this doesn't confuse you further, but it *is* possible for immoral governments to create arbitrary legal rights that are *not* based on moral rights, but I am referring to moral governments and principle-based laws which entrench legal rights based on legit moral rights. > and > Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit because > their law said so. They had the legal right to abuse the Jews because they rewrote the laws, but the moral rights of the Jews could not be repealed. In a moral society all legal rights follow moral rights, but not all moral rights have been recognized, and legal rights are subject to repeal. You are deeply fouled up Derek, and on a basic point. You'll never climb out of it as long as you are serving the massive chip on your shoulder instead of reason. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:49:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>>I snipped it away >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>> >>>>Exactly, because it's crap. >>> >>> Rather, it shows that you cannot defend your position >> >>I have addressed every old quote in there > > No Yes, at the time each and every quote got a substantial response, and you know it, most of them probably several times. Dredging them up out of context over and over is just desperation and pathetic. It shows that you cannot defend your position. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > regurgitated the same old tripe
You need to grow up Derek. This recycled garbage you come up with is nonsense. Anyone interested enough to wade through it and decipher it realizes that. Your only saving grace is that nobody is. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:21:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > Trying to snip away your quotes and the discussion that follows them only shows you know you're hosed, Ditch. <restore> >>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>> >>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>sentences. >>>> >>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>> laws protect them? >>> >>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >> >> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." > >I would still agree with that. Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* about legal rights in that above statement at the top of this post; you were talking about your moral right to be free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]". "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp <end restore> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right, that's >> how we know to create legal rights. >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> From those, "when looking if laws and sanctions exist >> against anyone who would assault [you]" to see if you >> have the legal right and thus the moral right to be free >> from their assault, any absence of those laws and >> sanctions would tell you you had no rights against them, >> by your false reckoning. > >That's a fallacy. It's your argument, and though you know it's a fallacy you'll still continue to use it. >Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them If you believe that is so, you cannot now claim that your above statement at the top of this post didn't refer to your moral rights as well as your legal rights, because according to you, "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", so stop lying. >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>> >>>You're equivocating again. >> >> No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while >> advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to >> you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", >> you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights >> when addressing legal rights. > >I can and I was. No, you can't, because according to you "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Each time you declare a legal right exists you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it. That being so, you cannot continue to lie by claiming your above quote at the top of this post referred ONLY to legal rights; you referred to your moral rights as well if "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right." It's as simple as that. >> We all know the connection between laws and legal >> rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by >> pretending you were trying to make a connection that's >> already established and apparent. > >It's not apparent at all. Yes, it is. We're all aware of the connection between laws and legal rights, so it's no use trying to derail the argument onto that connection rather than what you actually wrote and then subsequently snipped away at the top of this post. >> Now that you've >> declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop >> lying. > >I was simply not talking about moral rights Since you declared, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right" and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", each time you refer to a legal right you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it, so stop lying. >>>>>> you would >>>>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>>>> as good. >>>>> >>>>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >>>> >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>> >>>Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >>>therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. >> >> Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral >> right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that >> moral right. > >No we cannot. I've just shown that we can. I have the moral right to be free from anothers' physical assault, and from that moral right a legal right can be asserted. You simply don't have a clue. >> You, on the other hand have it the other way >> around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; >> >> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >> who would assault me. >> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp > >There's nothing about moral rights in that statement. There is when we consider that, according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", and, "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", because each time you refer to a legal right you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it, so stop lying. >> It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against >> those who would assault you, when looking, you would have >> no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." > >There's that fallacy again. It's your argument, so if you're now conceding that it's a fallacy you'll have to drop it. >>>> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >>>> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >>>> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >>>> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>> >>>They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >>>LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. >> >> That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person >> only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another >> because the law says so > >Wrong You cannot escape what you wrote, however hard you try or snip it away. "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp and "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", ` Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx That being so, according to you, the legal right to experiment on Jews was preceded by a moral right to experiment on them. The Nazis had a moral right to abuse them, according to you, because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> those Jews had no moral right not >> to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse > >Same fallacy. It's you argument, because according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", ` Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx Nazis had the legal right to experiment on Jews, as far as they were concerned, and according to you, being that they had the legal right to experiment on them it follows that a moral right to experiment on them existed before that legal right. >> and Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit >> because their law said so. > >They had the legal right to abuse the Jews Then you cannot now assert that a moral right to experiment on them didn't exist before they had a legal right to abuse them, because according to your view, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", ` Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx Now let's unsnip all you've ran from embarrassment and see if you have the balls to defend you position. <restore> >Denying the Antecedent >A= moral right >B= legal right > >A therefore B >Not B, therefore >Not A THAT denies the consequent, you stupid dummy. You clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding even the of simplest syllogisms. If we were to put you argument into a syllogistic framework it would go like this. According to your statements; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." we have; 1) If x holds a legal right (antecedent), then x holds a moral right (consequent). 2) x doesn't hold a legal right (denies the antecedent (invalid)) therefore 3) x doesn't hold a moral right. YOUR argument does deny the antecedent, but not in the form you tried but failed to describe. How can you not know that your above example denies the consequent rather than denying the antecedent? Why, after all these years on these news groups are you still so ignorant where simple syllogisms are concerned? I'll tell you why - it's because you're a slacker, Ditch - a lazy, idle slacker. <end restore> I'm hardly surprised to see you snip all that away in sheer embarrassment, but nevertheless, you do need to be shown that you simply haven't a clue where logic is concerned, so stop pretending that you do. Now let's deal with the rest of the post you snipped away, obviously because you're incapable of dealing with it and addressing your lies. <restore> >> According to you, then, if the laws protecting that fox's >> moral right to be free from our abuse are repealed, that >> fox loses its moral right to be free from abuse, first. > >No, it loses it's legal right. The moral right cannot be repealed. Yet further down this page you declare, "Yes it can be violated." You're all over the place, switching from one stance to another whenever the mood takes you. You're also on record saying; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 Society doesn't overrule their inalienable right not to be killed, you idiot, and you've only just finished conceding that by writing, "The moral right cannot be repealed." Make up your dull mind. >> Let's look at another example. > >> "Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of >> extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no >> longer need federal protection there, the Bush >> administration said Thursday. >> .... >> farmers will encounter fewer bureaucratic hurdles in >> dealing with wolves that harass livestock, said Rob >> Anderson, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm >> Bureau. The Minnesota and Wisconsin plans would >> allow limited killing of problem wolves, an issue under >> discussion in Michigan." >> http://tinyurl.com/sxple >> >> According to your rule those protected grey wolves >> once held the moral right not to be killed by us, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..", but >> now their legal right not to be shot by farmers has been >> relaxed, which, according to your rule means they no >> longer have the moral right not to be shot by farmers. > >Legal right. You're trying to equivocate between legal and moral rights again, but that line doesn't get you off the hook. According to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." That being so, when those grey wolves had legal protection it was preceded by a moral right against us not to be shot because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." A moral right, such as the moral right not to be shot is always an inalienable right once declared, whether that right belongs to humans or animals. >> What you need to understand is that the moral right to >> be free from abuse is always an inalienable right; > >I didn't say otherwise You did, and you're just about to again. >> it cannot be violated. > >Yes it can be violated. There it is. Above, when I said "that the moral right to be free from abuse is always an inalienable right", you replied, "I didn't say otherwise.", but now you're saying that they aren't inalienable and CAN be violated. You're all over the place and don't have a clue. Inalienable rights are by definition inalienable, meaning they can't be violated, you stupid imbecile. >> Clearly, then, your understanding >> of the meaning of rights is flawed if you believe laws >> codify them. > >Clearly it is *you* with the flawed understanding. No, my understanding of rights is perfectly clear. You, on the other hand, believe that laws codify a moral right, and that if no laws exist protecting that right, then that moral right doesn't exist. Look below this paragraph where you blurt out, "Laws are evidence of rights." If laws are evidence of rights you would have to concede that Nazis held the right to experiment on Jews, and that the Jews held no moral right to deny them their trespass upon them. >>>>>> [start Dutch] >>>>>> >>>>Laws are evidence of rights. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs >>>>>> >>> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made >>>>>> >>> illegal, dummy? >>>>> >>>>>Here you built an absurd strawman that animals ought to be moral agents. >>>> >>>> False. I've never suggested or implied that animals >>>> ought to be moral agents. You're lying now. >>> >>>Then what did you mean by "foxes hold a right against hound dogs" ? >> >> That word string is part of a whole sentence asking >> you if you believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs >> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. >> I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against >> hound dogs. Learn to read. > >Your statement intoduced the idea. No, my question asked if YOU believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against hound dogs. Learn to read. >>>>>> >>Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who >>>>>> >>are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they >>>>>> >>hold rights against fox hunters though. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > Well done; you've just acknowledged that all animals >>>>>> > currently protected by anti-abuse laws hold rights >>>>>> > against us. >>>>> >>>>>Which is what I said in the first place. >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> No, > >Yes I just knew you'd have no option but to snip my reply away in embarrassment. In fact you've snipped the entire last half of my post away, leaving everything unanswered for at least the second time. <re-re-restore> No, that's not what you said in the first place. What you said in the first place was; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >> That's what I have been saying all along. >> [end] >> Dutch Jun 5 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f94l7 That above statement is clearly a lie when we look at your other statements rejecting the proposition of animal rights. It's NOT what you've been "saying ALL along", so stop lying. I can dig out even more statements from you rejecting the proposition if you want me to. >> And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from >> causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, >> he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals >> don't hold rights against us after all, > >They don't They do, but according to you; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Now match that statement to mine concerning your rule; "And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit." > Should we view tham as holding moral rights against us? Yes, we should. >That's another question, one I would not take up with you That's a lie, seeing as you've only just finished asking it. >> and that we can use them any way we see fit. > >We don't "use" animals killed collaterally. I didn't say that we use them. What I DID say was that, according to your rule, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit. Statements from you show this to be a correct representation of your position; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Can you see the idiocy of your position? To paraphrase; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." All I did was exchange the term "animal" for "human", leaving the rule itself in place. Now, if we look at another statement from you telling us how rights work; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 and then apply your rule, "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." the idiocy of your position regarding rights becomes clear. >> He's all over the place and doesn't >> have a clue, and that's why he feels "irrevocably indebted" to >> the animals he eats but can't explain why. > >I did explain. No, you whiffed off and snipped every post instead of explaining your position, only to now insist that you did explain it. >They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs. But you've only just insisted that they hold rights against us. How can an animal hold rights against if in fact "They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs"? >What greater service could an animal do? The animal doesn't "do" anything, let alone provide you a service. You're still caught up in agreement with Harrison's argument that insists animals enter into a bargain with us. You still believe that, "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David (Harrison) says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >> He's totally lost and confused about the whole thing. > >You've been equivocating between legal rights and moral rights No, I didn't even mention legal rights in my post to Harrison. <end restore> You snipped all that away in embarrassment because you're an unethical liar and a fraud, Ditch. You have no reason to snip that evidence of your lies and stupidity away other than the fact that you simply can't bear to be seen that way. <end restore> Keep running and snipping, liar Ditch, if you think it helps relieve some of your embarrassment. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:24:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:49:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>I snipped it away >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>Exactly, because it's crap. >>>> >>>> Rather, it shows that you cannot defend your position >>> >>>I have addressed every old quote in there >> >> No > >Yes You've whiffed off from this whole post many times now without addressing ANY of it, you lying, no-fight slacker. <RE-RE-RESTORE> Rather, it shows that you cannot defend your position and lies against me. You snip it all away because it embarrasses you. Read it all again and see the hiding I'm giving you. <restore> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:50:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >"Derek" wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:41:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" wrote: >>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:27:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:03:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >>>>>>>>>irrevocably in their debt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Priceless! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> How does killing animals for food place meat eaters in the >>>>>> debt of those animals, Dutch? >>>>> >>>>>Those animals live and die to sustain us. >>>> >>>> But if they hold no right against your interest in slaughtering >>>> them for food, what are you indebted to concerning that >>>> animal if not a moral judgment that rises up against you >>>> for taking it's life capriciously? >>> >>>It's not a matter of rights, it's a question of attitude. When you >>>receive something beneficial you ought to be grateful for it >> >> How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be >> most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or >> receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by >> that animal in the first place? > >You don't "own" your life, it's not a possession. I do own my own life, and it's a possession that I have a right to hold. Now, back on track, "How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by that animal in the first place? >>> not attempt to claim a moral victory as ****wit does. >> >> Harrison feels grateful to the animals he eats, as you do, >> and grateful that they got to experience life while growing >> fat enough to make a meal of, so explain why Harrison is >> wrong to feel grateful while you are right, Dutch. > >Harrison feels animals owe *us* a debt of gratitude And so do you, to fulfil their part in a "mutually beneficial contract" between us and them, as your quotes clearly show. "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 You're in complete agreement with Harrison, and always have been. >>> Some people thank God when they sit down to >>>dinner, I think it makes more sense to thank the animals. >> >> What do you thank them for if you're of the belief that >> animals have no right to life, Dutch, and why don't you >> answer my above question? What are you indebted to >> concerning the animals you eat - what do you owe them? > >Thanks How can you thank an animal for its life if it didn't already own it and have a right to hold it? >>>>>How can we NOT consider ourselves indebted to them? >>>> >>>> You tell me how they can - that's the position you need to >>>> support now you've put yourself in it. It's not up to me to >>>> explain how they can't while you delay explaining how they >>>> can. It's your claim that "The fact that we raise them to kill >>>> them for food places us [meat eaters] irrevocably in their debt.", >>>> so explain precisely what about the animal they're indebted >>>> to, and why meat eaters are indebted to *it* in the first place. >>> >>>I'm thankful to the animal, for it's life, >> >> How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it >> doesn't already have a right to that life? > >I don't look at it that way. Well I'm now forcing you to look at it that way, whether you like it or not, so I'll ask again, " How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it doesn't already have a right to that life? >>>and for the sustenance that >>>provided. Aboriginal cultures do something similar in their ceremonies. >> >> Rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived >> and died, ****wit, > >Whow would you know anything about rational people Derek? I know that rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived and died for them, as you and Harrison do. >> although it is amusing to see you compare >> your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your >> point accepted. > >I don't care if you accept it or not. I don't, but like I said, "it is amusing to see you compare your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your point accepted." >>>>>> According to you, "By treating >>>>>> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only approach >>>>>> making it a square deal, but we can never get there.", so tell >>>>>> me what meat eaters are indebted to. >>>>> >>>>>The animals. >>>> >>>> Yes, we've established that, but what is it about them that >>>> meat eaters are irrevocably indebted to? >>> >>>Everything they provide. >> >> You've only just finished explaining to me that you're >> "thankful to the animal for it's life", as well as everything >> they provide, and you're also of the opinion that "The fact >> that we raise them to kill them for food places us (meat >> eaters) irrevocably in their debt." In short, then, you're >> irrevocably indebted to the animals you eat because you >> take their lives which you know they have a right to, and >> this brings us to your earlier quotes regarding your belief >> in animal rights. >> >> "I am an animal rights believer." >> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 >> >> and >> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". >> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our >> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value >> the animal or species." >> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh >> >> and >> >> "Rights for animals exist because human rights >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for >> animals would not exist." >> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz >> >> and >> >> "If they are inherent in humans then why are >> they not in some way inherent in all animals? >> I think rights are a human invention which we >> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in >> certain situations to other animals." >> ... >> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought >> to be prohibited from extending some form of >> rights towards animals in their care." >> ... >> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, >> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply >> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways >> within our sphere of influence." >> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb >> >> and >> >> "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar >> way as minor children or people in comas. >> They can hold rights against us, but we can't >> hold rights against them." >> Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx >> >> You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison >> and me have always been telling you, so why deny >> it? > >I don't. You do, and here below are just two quotes to prove it; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 Why do you keep swapping from one position to the other conflicting position all the time? >>>>>> What do meat eaters owe them, >>>>> >>>>>Kindness >>>> >>>> What else do meat eaters owe them as well as kindness? >>> >>>Nothing >> >> That's a lie, because according to you, ""By treating >> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >> approach making it a square deal, but we can never >> get there." That necessarily means that meat eaters >> owe them more than kindness and a humane death, >> and that they'll never be able to repay their debt to >> animals even after being kind to them and giving >> them a humane death, so I ask again, "What else do >> meat eaters owe them as well as kindness?" > >We have nothing more except more kindness. But according to your statement meat eaters owe them more than kindness and a humane death, so what is it? >We remain indebted. If meat eaters remain indebted to the animals they eat, even after affording them kindness and a humane death, then it stands to reason that they owe more to them, according to you, so what is it? >>>> According to you, kindness and a humane killing isn't >>>> enough to make it a square deal with the animals. You >>>> wrote, >>>> "By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we >>>> may only approach making it a square deal, but we can >>>> never get there.", >>>> >>>> so there's more than kindness that owed, so what is it? >>> >>>Nothing, that's all we have to give. >> >> No, there's more, according to your statement. You're >> of the opinion that meat eaters owe them more than a >> humane death and kindness. If meat eaters never even >> "approach making it a square deal" with the animals the >> eat, that necessarily means something more is left owing, >> so what is it? > >It doesn't matter. So says you after being forced to concede yet again that you DO believe animals hold rights against us. Heh heh heh. >>>>>> and being that this debt can never be repaid why >>>>>> is it right and proper to continue eating them, >>>>> >>>>>Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does. >>>> >>>> Then why hurt and kill animals, only to be irrevocably >>>> in their debt? >>> >>>Because the alternative is death >> >> No, that dodge doesn't even follow from the question I >> asked. One can live without causing the deaths of farm >> animals, > >I disagree. Yet you're afraid to explain why. Why don't you explain why one cannot live without causing the deaths of farm animals, Dutch? >> so I'll ask it again; "Why hurt and kill animals, >> only to be irrevocably in their debt?" Also, now you've >> at last conceded that killing animals hurts them, why do >> you continue abusing them in this way after declaring; >> >> "If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware >> that abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit >> in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not >> ask for the abuse. In order to avoid moral complicity >> in such abuse I must stop funding it and find a source >> of meat where no abuse is taking place, or else stop >> eating meat altogether." >> Dutch Jan 31 2005 http://tinyurl.com/c3hvf You haven't addressed this, Dutch. You've conceded that animals are hurt when being killed, and you've declared that if you were to find that animal farming is cruel or abusive you would stop eating meat, yet you still continue to eat it. Look at your quotes below this line which show what a liar you are, Ditch. "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz and "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa >>>> How does it feel to be forever in the >>>> debt of the animals you eat, Dutch? >>> >>>It feels right, >> >> What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase >> your debt for the lives you take while never being able >> to repay what you already owe, Dutch? > >The right to live and thrive and prosper on this earth. One can thrive and prosper on this earth without increasing a debt by taking the lives of farmed animals, as per your argument, so once again, "What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase your debt for the lives you take while never being able to repay what you already owe, Dutch? >>>>>It's proper because it's how animals live, how the biosphere operates. >>>> >>>> No, animal farming cannot be justified by appealing to >>>> nature or how the biosphere operates. >>> >>>Not only animal farming, all impact on animals. Animals impacting other >>>animals *is* how it works, especially wrt humans. >> >> You're still appealing to nature to get your argument >> accepted, and that's not good enough. Read what I >> included in my last post below this sentence to see >> which fallacy you're trying to invoke. > >It's not a fallacy It is, as described below this line. >>>> The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature >>>> The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political >>>> arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy >>>> between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the >>>> natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is >>>> inevitable, because the natural world is similar: >>>> >>>> "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals >>>> struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural >>>> resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership >>>> of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's >>>> how the natural world works." >>>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#natural >>> >>>I wasn't using biology to rationalize capitalism or any other political >>>system. >> >> When attempting to draw an analogy between the principle >> of farming meat for food and some aspect of the natural >> World by stating, "It's proper because it's how animals live", >> you are appealing to nature to get your point accepted as >> true, and that's not acceptable. > >I'm not trying to get anything accepted Yes, you are, and you're appealing to nature to get that point accepted, as shown. >>>> Why do you carry so much guilt and feel so irrevocably >>>> indebted to the animals you eat, Dutch, >>> >>>I don't feel guilt. >> >> Explain the moral principle behind your reasoning that >> compels you to increase your unpaid debts to the animals >> you eat without feeling guilty about taking something you >> don't intend to repay. You've failed to answer this as well. >>>I feel gratitude. >> >> How can you be grateful for their lives if they didn't >> have a right to their lives in the first place, Dutch? > >I explained that above. No, you've merely repeated that you feel gratitude for their lives and deaths without explaining how, when according to you they have no right to their lives and therefore nothing for you to thank them for. >>>> and why do you >>>> criticise others who don't want anything to do with >>>> being indebted to farmed animals? >>> >>>I don't, I have no problem with that at all. >> >> Then you have no argument against those who abstain >> from meat on ethical grounds. > >I don't care what food people abstain from or why, it's none of my business. That's better. Run along now - you're done. <end restore> >LOL You've nothing to laugh about, liar, and snipping the whole post away only shows that you know it. <end re-restore> Keep running, liar. <end restore> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:45:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > regurgitated the same old tripe > >You need to grow up Derek. You need to start addressing posts and the points put to you instead of snipping everything away and running, nebbish. <re-re-re-restore> Showing you your contradictory positions and unearthing your lies doesn't discredit me, but it does discredit you, and you know it, which is why you keep snipping the whole post away in embarrassment. <re-re-restore> <restore> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:50:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >"Derek" wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:41:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" wrote: >>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:27:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:03:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >>>>>>>>>irrevocably in their debt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Priceless! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> How does killing animals for food place meat eaters in the >>>>>> debt of those animals, Dutch? >>>>> >>>>>Those animals live and die to sustain us. >>>> >>>> But if they hold no right against your interest in slaughtering >>>> them for food, what are you indebted to concerning that >>>> animal if not a moral judgment that rises up against you >>>> for taking it's life capriciously? >>> >>>It's not a matter of rights, it's a question of attitude. When you >>>receive something beneficial you ought to be grateful for it >> >> How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be >> most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or >> receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by >> that animal in the first place? > >You don't "own" your life, it's not a possession. I do own my own life, and it's a possession that I have a right to hold. Now, back on track, "How can an opponent of animal rights, as you claim to be most of the time until I catch you out, be grateful for or receive something that wasn't already rightfully owned by that animal in the first place? >>> not attempt to claim a moral victory as ****wit does. >> >> Harrison feels grateful to the animals he eats, as you do, >> and grateful that they got to experience life while growing >> fat enough to make a meal of, so explain why Harrison is >> wrong to feel grateful while you are right, Dutch. > >Harrison feels animals owe *us* a debt of gratitude And so do you, to fulfil their part in a "mutually beneficial contract" between us and them, as your quotes clearly show. "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 You're in complete agreement with Harrison, and always have been. >>> Some people thank God when they sit down to >>>dinner, I think it makes more sense to thank the animals. >> >> What do you thank them for if you're of the belief that >> animals have no right to life, Dutch, and why don't you >> answer my above question? What are you indebted to >> concerning the animals you eat - what do you owe them? > >Thanks How can you thank an animal for its life if it didn't already own it and have a right to hold it? >>>>>How can we NOT consider ourselves indebted to them? >>>> >>>> You tell me how they can - that's the position you need to >>>> support now you've put yourself in it. It's not up to me to >>>> explain how they can't while you delay explaining how they >>>> can. It's your claim that "The fact that we raise them to kill >>>> them for food places us [meat eaters] irrevocably in their debt.", >>>> so explain precisely what about the animal they're indebted >>>> to, and why meat eaters are indebted to *it* in the first place. >>> >>>I'm thankful to the animal, for it's life, >> >> How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it >> doesn't already have a right to that life? > >I don't look at it that way. Well I'm now forcing you to look at it that way, whether you like it or not, so I'll ask again, " How can you be "thankful *to* an animal for it's life" if it doesn't already have a right to that life? >>>and for the sustenance that >>>provided. Aboriginal cultures do something similar in their ceremonies. >> >> Rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived >> and died, ****wit, > >Whow would you know anything about rational people Derek? I know that rational people don't thank dead animals for having lived and died for them, as you and Harrison do. >> although it is amusing to see you compare >> your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your >> point accepted. > >I don't care if you accept it or not. I don't, but like I said, "it is amusing to see you compare your rational thinking to an Aboriginal ceremony to get your point accepted." >>>>>> According to you, "By treating >>>>>> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only approach >>>>>> making it a square deal, but we can never get there.", so tell >>>>>> me what meat eaters are indebted to. >>>>> >>>>>The animals. >>>> >>>> Yes, we've established that, but what is it about them that >>>> meat eaters are irrevocably indebted to? >>> >>>Everything they provide. >> >> You've only just finished explaining to me that you're >> "thankful to the animal for it's life", as well as everything >> they provide, and you're also of the opinion that "The fact >> that we raise them to kill them for food places us (meat >> eaters) irrevocably in their debt." In short, then, you're >> irrevocably indebted to the animals you eat because you >> take their lives which you know they have a right to, and >> this brings us to your earlier quotes regarding your belief >> in animal rights. >> >> "I am an animal rights believer." >> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 >> >> and >> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". >> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our >> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value >> the animal or species." >> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh >> >> and >> >> "Rights for animals exist because human rights >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for >> animals would not exist." >> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz >> >> and >> >> "If they are inherent in humans then why are >> they not in some way inherent in all animals? >> I think rights are a human invention which we >> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in >> certain situations to other animals." >> ... >> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought >> to be prohibited from extending some form of >> rights towards animals in their care." >> ... >> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, >> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply >> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways >> within our sphere of influence." >> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb >> >> and >> >> "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar >> way as minor children or people in comas. >> They can hold rights against us, but we can't >> hold rights against them." >> Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx >> >> You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison >> and me have always been telling you, so why deny >> it? > >I don't. You do, and here below are just two quotes to prove it; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 Why do you keep swapping from one position to the other conflicting position all the time? >>>>>> What do meat eaters owe them, >>>>> >>>>>Kindness >>>> >>>> What else do meat eaters owe them as well as kindness? >>> >>>Nothing >> >> That's a lie, because according to you, ""By treating >> them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >> approach making it a square deal, but we can never >> get there." That necessarily means that meat eaters >> owe them more than kindness and a humane death, >> and that they'll never be able to repay their debt to >> animals even after being kind to them and giving >> them a humane death, so I ask again, "What else do >> meat eaters owe them as well as kindness?" > >We have nothing more except more kindness. But according to your statement meat eaters owe them more than kindness and a humane death, so what is it? >We remain indebted. If meat eaters remain indebted to the animals they eat, even after affording them kindness and a humane death, then it stands to reason that they owe more to them, according to you, so what is it? >>>> According to you, kindness and a humane killing isn't >>>> enough to make it a square deal with the animals. You >>>> wrote, >>>> "By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we >>>> may only approach making it a square deal, but we can >>>> never get there.", >>>> >>>> so there's more than kindness that owed, so what is it? >>> >>>Nothing, that's all we have to give. >> >> No, there's more, according to your statement. You're >> of the opinion that meat eaters owe them more than a >> humane death and kindness. If meat eaters never even >> "approach making it a square deal" with the animals the >> eat, that necessarily means something more is left owing, >> so what is it? > >It doesn't matter. So says you after being forced to concede yet again that you DO believe animals hold rights against us. Heh heh heh. >>>>>> and being that this debt can never be repaid why >>>>>> is it right and proper to continue eating them, >>>>> >>>>>Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does. >>>> >>>> Then why hurt and kill animals, only to be irrevocably >>>> in their debt? >>> >>>Because the alternative is death >> >> No, that dodge doesn't even follow from the question I >> asked. One can live without causing the deaths of farm >> animals, > >I disagree. Yet you're afraid to explain why. Why don't you explain why one cannot live without causing the deaths of farm animals, Dutch? >> so I'll ask it again; "Why hurt and kill animals, >> only to be irrevocably in their debt?" Also, now you've >> at last conceded that killing animals hurts them, why do >> you continue abusing them in this way after declaring; >> >> "If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware >> that abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit >> in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not >> ask for the abuse. In order to avoid moral complicity >> in such abuse I must stop funding it and find a source >> of meat where no abuse is taking place, or else stop >> eating meat altogether." >> Dutch Jan 31 2005 http://tinyurl.com/c3hvf You haven't addressed this, Dutch. You've conceded that animals are hurt when being killed, and you've declared that if you were to find that animal farming is cruel or abusive you would stop eating meat, yet you still continue to eat it. Look at your quotes below this line which show what a liar you are, Ditch. "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz and "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa >>>> How does it feel to be forever in the >>>> debt of the animals you eat, Dutch? >>> >>>It feels right, >> >> What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase >> your debt for the lives you take while never being able >> to repay what you already owe, Dutch? > >The right to live and thrive and prosper on this earth. One can thrive and prosper on this earth without increasing a debt by taking the lives of farmed animals, as per your argument, so once again, "What moral principle tells you that it is right to increase your debt for the lives you take while never being able to repay what you already owe, Dutch? >>>>>It's proper because it's how animals live, how the biosphere operates. >>>> >>>> No, animal farming cannot be justified by appealing to >>>> nature or how the biosphere operates. >>> >>>Not only animal farming, all impact on animals. Animals impacting other >>>animals *is* how it works, especially wrt humans. >> >> You're still appealing to nature to get your argument >> accepted, and that's not good enough. Read what I >> included in my last post below this sentence to see >> which fallacy you're trying to invoke. > >It's not a fallacy It is, as described below this line. >>>> The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature >>>> The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political >>>> arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy >>>> between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the >>>> natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is >>>> inevitable, because the natural world is similar: >>>> >>>> "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals >>>> struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural >>>> resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership >>>> of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's >>>> how the natural world works." >>>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#natural >>> >>>I wasn't using biology to rationalize capitalism or any other political >>>system. >> >> When attempting to draw an analogy between the principle >> of farming meat for food and some aspect of the natural >> World by stating, "It's proper because it's how animals live", >> you are appealing to nature to get your point accepted as >> true, and that's not acceptable. > >I'm not trying to get anything accepted Yes, you are, and you're appealing to nature to get that point accepted, as shown. >>>> Why do you carry so much guilt and feel so irrevocably >>>> indebted to the animals you eat, Dutch, >>> >>>I don't feel guilt. >> >> Explain the moral principle behind your reasoning that >> compels you to increase your unpaid debts to the animals >> you eat without feeling guilty about taking something you >> don't intend to repay. You've failed to answer this as well. >>>I feel gratitude. >> >> How can you be grateful for their lives if they didn't >> have a right to their lives in the first place, Dutch? > >I explained that above. No, you've merely repeated that you feel gratitude for their lives and deaths without explaining how, when according to you they have no right to their lives and therefore nothing for you to thank them for. >>>> and why do you >>>> criticise others who don't want anything to do with >>>> being indebted to farmed animals? >>> >>>I don't, I have no problem with that at all. >> >> Then you have no argument against those who abstain >> from meat on ethical grounds. > >I don't care what food people abstain from or why, it's none of my business. That's better. Run along now - you're done. <end restore> >LOL You've nothing to laugh about, liar, and snipping the whole post away only shows that you know it. <end restore> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:08:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:52:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:47:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:50:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>>>sentences. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>>>> laws protect them? >>>>> >>>>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >>>> >>>> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >>>> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." >>> >>>I would still agree with that. >> >> Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* >> about legal rights in that above statement at the top of >> this post; you were talking about your moral right to be >> free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if >> laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would >> assault [you]". > >I was referring to legal rights in my statement. And being that, according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", ` Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx you were in fact referring to your moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if laws exist to protect it against others who would assault you. "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp so stop lying, Ditch. In your other post to this you wrote, "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews .." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx That being so, according to your view, if they did have the legal right to abuse Jews it was preceded by a moral right to abuse them because, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", ` Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx It's as simple and as wrong as that, Ditch. You clearly haven't a clue. Now let's deal with the rest of the post you snipped away in an effort to save your embarrassment, if you've got the balls. <restore> >> >>> [start Harrison] >> >>> I don't believe any of us have rights other than those >> >>> provided by law. >> >> >> >>We're talking about *moral* rights, >> > >> > There are none. >> >> It figures that you would think that. Every legal right is >> preceded by a moral right, that's how we know to create >> legal rights. >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right Then you cannot claim that your above statement at the top of this post excluded moral rights. You falsely measure yours to see if they exist by seeing if laws and sanctions against others are in place to protect them. >> It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are >> in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every >> legal right is preceded by a moral right." It's also clear that >> you DO believe your legal right to be free from assault >> is preceded by a moral right to be free from assault, > >Sounds ok so far Then you were wrong to say that you weren't addressing moral rights in your above statement at the top of this post. "It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." You've just replied to that with, "Sounds ok so far." >> and >> that if no laws exist to protect that right, you don't have >> the moral right to be free from assault. > >That is an obvious fallacy. It's the logical conclusion to your argument. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." According to those, if "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." and "[you] measure your right to be free from physical assault by looking to see if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]", you would have to falsely conclude that you have no moral right to be free from their abuse if there were no laws and sanctions against them. It's as simple and as wrong as that. >Denying the Antecedent >A= moral right >B= legal right > >A therefore B >Not B, therefore >Not A THAT denies the consequent, you stupid dummy. You clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding even the of simplest syllogisms. If we were to put you argument into a syllogistic framework it would go like this. According to your statements; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." we have; 1) If x holds a legal right (antecedent), then x holds a moral right (consequent). 2) x doesn't hold a legal right (denies the antecedent (invalid)) therefore 3) x doesn't hold a moral right. YOUR argument does deny the antecedent, but not in the form you tried but failed to describe. How can you not know that your above example denies the consequent rather than denying the antecedent? Why, after all these years on these news groups are you still so ignorant where simple syllogisms are concerned? I'll tell you why - it's because you're a slacker, Ditch - a lazy, idle slacker. >>>>>If laws against assault >>>>>imply legal rights, then I conclude that laws against abuse do also. >>>> >>>> Laws don't codify a right, and conversely, the lack of >>>> any laws protecting people doesn't mean to say those >>>> people don't hold rights. >>> >>>That's basically false unless you are equivocating back and forth between >>>legal and moral rights. >> >> No, it's perfectly true. > >Please don't hack my sentences apart I do what I please, and asking me not to trim the rubbish from your sentences while you snip whole posts away in sheer embarrassment is a bit rich coming from you, Ditch. There's a whole argument at the bottom of this post that you've repeatedly snipped at every turn in high dudgeon to avoid being seen as the stupid liar you are, so don't go telling me not to snip, especially when my snips are but to cut away your stupid snides and petty quips. I leave what's relevant, and if asked to respond to what I've snipped, I do. I don't run away like you and rick do at every turn when asked to explain my position. >>>>>> According to Dutch, he only has a right to be free from >>>>>> assault if laws are in place to stop others assaulting him, >>>>> >>>>>Right, I only have a "legal right" based on those laws. >>>> >>>> No, you have a moral right against assault, even if laws >>>> protecting that right don't exist. >>> >>>I wasn't addressing the issue of "moral rights". >> >> You're lying again, Ditch. >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >You're equivocating again. No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights when addressing legal rights. >> Being that you believe "Every legal right is preceded by a >> moral right .." how can you honestly say that you wasn't >> addressing moral rights when advocating legal rights? > >Because I was talking about the connection between laws and legal rights. We all know the connection between laws and legal rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by pretending you were trying to make a connection that's already established and apparent. Now that you've declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop lying. >>>>>> and he uses that same rule to reason whether animals >>>>>> hold rights as well. >>>>> >>>>>So I do. Show how the reasoning is flawed if you disagree. >>>> >>>> If your rule dictates that a person only holds a right >>>> against another because the law says so, >>> >>>A legal right, not a moral right. >> >> Your constant switching between moral and legal rights >> doesn't help you here, either. > >You are either confused or equivocating. No, but you've been trying to equivocate between the two from the start, unsuccessfully. >>>> you would >>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>> as good. >>> >>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that moral right. You, on the other hand have it the other way around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against those who would assault you, when looking, you would have no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >> be free from persecution and grim experiments. > >They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another because the law says so, those Jews had no moral right not to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse, and Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit because their law said so. >> You would >> have to conclude that women held no rights against their >> husbands who were legally allowed to beat them with a >> stick no thicker than the width of their thumb. You would >> have to conclude that men had the right to beat them. Your >> reasoning holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the >> ages as good. > >"Good"?? Now you are referring to "moral rights". Always have been, while you try to get some wriggle room by jumping back and forth between legal and moral rights. >>>>>> Take foxes, for example. Now that >>>>>> fox hunting with hounds has been banned in Britain he >>>>>> believes they hold a right against man not to be hunted >>>>>> with his hounds. Read the discussion I had with him on >>>>>> this issue where he concedes, "It is reasonable to say >>>>>> that they hold rights against fox hunters though." >>>>> >>>>>Very good. >>>> >>>> Then, do you believe that the fox didn't hold the right >>>> to be free from abuse until new laws were enacted to >>>> protect it from that abuse? If the laws were relaxed >>>> or repealed, would you then say that the fox no longer >>>> held the right to be free from abuse? >>> >>>Correct, referring to LEGAL RIGHTS. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >a=>b=>c > >Moral rights=>Laws=>Legal rights > >There are an undetermined number of 'a', not all of which are followed by >'b', but all the 'b's' are preceded by 'a's' and followed by 'c's'. Crap. How can "Laws" come before "Legal rights", you idiot? Laws are put in place after a legal right has been established. Not the other way around. As usual, you have it all backwards. >> According to you, then, if the laws protecting that fox's >> moral right to be free from our abuse are repealed, that >> fox loses its moral right to be free from abuse, first. > >No, it loses it's legal right. The moral right cannot be repealed. Yet further down this page you declare, "Yes it can be violated." You're all over the place, switching from one stance to another whenever the mood takes you. You're also on record saying; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 Society doesn't overrule their inalienable right not to be killed, you idiot, and you've only just finished conceding that by writing, "The moral right cannot be repealed." Make up your dull mind. >> Let's look at another example. > >> "Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of >> extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no >> longer need federal protection there, the Bush >> administration said Thursday. >> .... >> farmers will encounter fewer bureaucratic hurdles in >> dealing with wolves that harass livestock, said Rob >> Anderson, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm >> Bureau. The Minnesota and Wisconsin plans would >> allow limited killing of problem wolves, an issue under >> discussion in Michigan." >> http://tinyurl.com/sxple >> >> According to your rule those protected grey wolves >> once held the moral right not to be killed by us, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..", but >> now their legal right not to be shot by farmers has been >> relaxed, which, according to your rule means they no >> longer have the moral right not to be shot by farmers. > >Legal right. You're trying to equivocate between legal and moral rights again, but that line doesn't get you off the hook. According to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." That being so, when those grey wolves had legal protection it was preceded by a moral right against us not to be shot because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." A moral right, such as the moral right not to be shot is always an inalienable right once declared, whether that right belongs to humans or animals. >> What you need to understand is that the moral right to >> be free from abuse is always an inalienable right; > >I didn't say otherwise You did, and you're just about to again. >> it cannot be violated. > >Yes it can be violated. There it is. Above, when I said "that the moral right to be free from abuse is always an inalienable right", you replied, "I didn't say otherwise.", but now you're saying that they aren't inalienable and CAN be violated. You're all over the place and don't have a clue. Inalienable rights are by definition inalienable, meaning they can't be violated, you stupid imbecile. >> Clearly, then, your understanding >> of the meaning of rights is flawed if you believe laws >> codify them. > >Clearly it is *you* with the flawed understanding. No, my understanding of rights is perfectly clear. You, on the other hand, believe that laws codify a moral right, and that if no laws exist protecting that right, then that moral right doesn't exist. Look below this paragraph where you blurt out, "Laws are evidence of rights." If laws are evidence of rights you would have to concede that Nazis held the right to experiment on Jews, and that the Jews held no moral right to deny them their trespass upon them. >>>>>> [start Dutch] >>>>>> >>>>Laws are evidence of rights. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs >>>>>> >>> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made >>>>>> >>> illegal, dummy? >>>>> >>>>>Here you built an absurd strawman that animals ought to be moral agents. >>>> >>>> False. I've never suggested or implied that animals >>>> ought to be moral agents. You're lying now. >>> >>>Then what did you mean by "foxes hold a right against hound dogs" ? >> >> That word string is part of a whole sentence asking >> you if you believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs >> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. >> I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against >> hound dogs. Learn to read. > >Your statement intoduced the idea. No, my question asked if YOU believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against hound dogs. Learn to read. >>>>>> >>Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who >>>>>> >>are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they >>>>>> >>hold rights against fox hunters though. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > Well done; you've just acknowledged that all animals >>>>>> > currently protected by anti-abuse laws hold rights >>>>>> > against us. >>>>> >>>>>Which is what I said in the first place. >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> No, > >Yes I just knew you'd have no option but to snip my reply away in embarrassment. In fact you've snipped the entire last half of my post away, leaving everything unanswered for at least the second time. <re-re-restore> No, that's not what you said in the first place. What you said in the first place was; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >> That's what I have been saying all along. >> [end] >> Dutch Jun 5 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f94l7 That above statement is clearly a lie when we look at your other statements rejecting the proposition of animal rights. It's NOT what you've been "saying ALL along", so stop lying. I can dig out even more statements from you rejecting the proposition if you want me to. >> And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from >> causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, >> he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals >> don't hold rights against us after all, > >They don't They do, but according to you; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Now match that statement to mine concerning your rule; "And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit." > Should we view tham as holding moral rights against us? Yes, we should. >That's another question, one I would not take up with you That's a lie, seeing as you've only just finished asking it. >> and that we can use them any way we see fit. > >We don't "use" animals killed collaterally. I didn't say that we use them. What I DID say was that, according to your rule, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit. Statements from you show this to be a correct representation of your position; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Can you see the idiocy of your position? To paraphrase; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." All I did was exchange the term "animal" for "human", leaving the rule itself in place. Now, if we look at another statement from you telling us how rights work; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 and then apply your rule, "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." the idiocy of your position regarding rights becomes clear. >> He's all over the place and doesn't >> have a clue, and that's why he feels "irrevocably indebted" to >> the animals he eats but can't explain why. > >I did explain. No, you whiffed off and snipped every post instead of explaining your position, only to now insist that you did explain it. >They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs. But you've only just insisted that they hold rights against us. How can an animal hold rights against if in fact "They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs"? >What greater service could an animal do? The animal doesn't "do" anything, let alone provide you a service. You're still caught up in agreement with Harrison's argument that insists animals enter into a bargain with us. You still believe that, "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David (Harrison) says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >> He's totally lost and confused about the whole thing. > >You've been equivocating between legal rights and moral rights No, I didn't even mention legal rights in my post to Harrison. <end restore> You snipped all that away in embarrassment because you're an unethical liar and a fraud, Ditch. You have no reason to snip that evidence of your lies and stupidity away other than the fact that you simply can't bear to be seen that way. <end restore> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:21:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> > Trying to snip away your quotes and the discussion that > follows them only shows you know you're hosed, Ditch. Your elaborate concoctions are already taking up too much space in the Google archives, I'm not going to duplicate them. The only thing they show is that you're a borderline head-case. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:24:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>I have addressed every old quote in there >>> >>> No >> >>Yes > > You've whiffed off Nope. I have answered all your lame accusations at least once, that's it. I don't need to re-address them every time you reassemble them and re-paste them. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:45:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > regurgitated the same old tripe >> >>You need to grow up Derek. > > You need to start addressing posts I've addressed every point. If you want the answers spend some time going over the original posts. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > repeated the same mistakes again I'm not going to waste another second on this crap Derek. The two seconds it takes to see it's the same garbage is too much. Go ahead and paste your mistakes back in, I'm done here. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:54:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:45:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > regurgitated the same old tripe >>> >>>You need to grow up Derek. >> >> You need to start addressing posts > >I've addressed every point. No, you haven't, nebbish. You always whiff off when the going gets too tough for you, and then you spend the rest of your time trying to lie your way out of trouble by insisting you've answered everything that's been put to you in the posts you snip away. That's simply not good enough. In this post you've snipped away, you conceded, yet again, that "You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison and me have always been telling you" and when asked why you deny it you replied, "I don't", so explain why you kill and eat the meat from right's holders, liar Ditch. Read your quotes I included in this post you snipped away, the question I put to you at the bottom of them, and then your reply. <restore> > In short, then, you're irrevocably indebted to the animals > you eat because you take their lives which you know > they have a right to, and this brings us to your earlier > quotes regarding your belief in animal rights. > > "I am an animal rights believer." > Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 > > and > > "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". > They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our > own rights are b) to what degree and how we value > the animal or species." > Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh > > and > > "Rights for animals exist because human rights > exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for > animals would not exist." > Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz > > and > > "If they are inherent in humans then why are > they not in some way inherent in all animals? > I think rights are a human invention which we > apply widely to humans and in specific ways in > certain situations to other animals." > ... > "There is no coherent reason why humans ought > to be prohibited from extending some form of > rights towards animals in their care." > ... > "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, > we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply > versions of them to certain animals in limited ways > within our sphere of influence." > Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb > > and > > "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar > way as minor children or people in comas. > They can hold rights against us, but we can't > hold rights against them." > Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx > > You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison > and me have always been telling you, so why deny > it? I don't. <end restore> Now that you've admitted to being an animal rights advocate, yet again, why do you continue to kill and eat them? Apart from the fact that you believe they hold rights against us, look at your other quotes you've ran from in this post you keep snipping away that tell us why you claim not to eat meat. "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this and health reasons I eat no meat at all." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa and "Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate the treatment of animals in the mass meat industry I choose not not eat it." Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o and "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz And now look at a later quote from you where you admit to eating the meat from those animals that you believe you shouldn't for the reasons you gave above. "I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes from factory farms." Dutch Dec 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8w25v It's clear, then, that though you believe animals hold rights against us, and that you "cannot in all good conscience tolerate the treatment of animals in the mass meat industry", you DO still eat it. Can you see now why I and other animal rights advocates view you as an unethical liar? Your position here on these animal-related groups is the most absurd of all, and you have no room to criticise the honest animal rights advocates that shun meat. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:52:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:24:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>I have addressed every old quote in there >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes >> >> You've whiffed off > >Nope. You most certainly have, nebbish. You always whiff off when the going gets too tough for you, and then you spend the rest of your time trying to lie your way out of trouble by insisting you've answered everything that's been put to you in the posts you snip away. That's simply not good enough. In this post you've snipped away, you conceded, yet again, that "You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison and me have always been telling you" and when asked why you deny it you replied, "I don't", so explain why you eat the meat from right's holders, liar Ditch. Read your quotes I included in this post you snipped away, the question I put to you at the bottom of them, and then your reply. <restore> > In short, then, you're irrevocably indebted to the animals > you eat because you take their lives which you know > they have a right to, and this brings us to your earlier > quotes regarding your belief in animal rights. > > "I am an animal rights believer." > Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 > > and > > "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". > They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our > own rights are b) to what degree and how we value > the animal or species." > Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh > > and > > "Rights for animals exist because human rights > exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for > animals would not exist." > Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz > > and > > "If they are inherent in humans then why are > they not in some way inherent in all animals? > I think rights are a human invention which we > apply widely to humans and in specific ways in > certain situations to other animals." > ... > "There is no coherent reason why humans ought > to be prohibited from extending some form of > rights towards animals in their care." > ... > "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, > we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply > versions of them to certain animals in limited ways > within our sphere of influence." > Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb > > and > > "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar > way as minor children or people in comas. > They can hold rights against us, but we can't > hold rights against them." > Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx > > You're an animal rights advocate, just like Harrison > and me have always been telling you, so why deny > it? I don't. <end restore> Now that you've admitted to being an animal rights advocate, yet again, why do you continue to kill and eat them? Apart from the fact that you believe they hold rights against us, look at your other quotes you've ran from in this post you keep snipping away that tell us why you claim not to eat meat. "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this and health reasons I eat no meat at all." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa and "Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate the treatment of animals in the mass meat industry I choose not not eat it." Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o and "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz And now look at a later quote from you where you admit to eating the meat from those animals that you believe you shouldn't for the reasons you gave above. "I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes from factory farms." Dutch Dec 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/8w25v It's clear, then, that though you believe animals hold rights against us, and that you "cannot in all good conscience tolerate the treatment of animals in the mass meat industry", you DO still eat it. Can you see now why I and other animal rights advocates view you as an unethical liar? >I have answered all your lame accusations at least once No, you haven't, liar Ditch; you snipped them all away in sheer embarrassment after being found to be a congenital liar. Your position here on these animal-related groups is the most absurd of all, and you have no room to criticise the honest animal rights advocates that shun meat. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:57:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >I'm not going to waste another second on this crap Derek. In other words, you cannot address your lies and incompetence that I've revealed about you. <re-re-re-restore> >>>>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>>>sentences. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>>>> laws protect them? >>>>> >>>>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >>>> >>>> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >>>> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." >>> >>>I would still agree with that. >> >> Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* >> about legal rights in that above statement at the top of >> this post; you were talking about your moral right to be >> free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if >> laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would >> assault [you]". > >I was referring to legal rights in my statement. And being that, according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx you were in fact referring to your moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if laws exist to protect it against others who would assault you. "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp so stop lying, Ditch. In your other post to this you wrote, "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews .." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx That being so, according to your view, if they did have the legal right to abuse Jews it was preceded by a moral right to abuse them because, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx It's as simple and as wrong as that, Ditch. You clearly haven't a clue. Now let's deal with the rest of the post you snipped away in an effort to save your embarrassment, if you've got the balls. <restore> >> >>> [start Harrison] >> >>> I don't believe any of us have rights other than those >> >>> provided by law. >> >> >> >>We're talking about *moral* rights, >> > >> > There are none. >> >> It figures that you would think that. Every legal right is >> preceded by a moral right, that's how we know to create >> legal rights. >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right Then you cannot claim that your above statement at the top of this post excluded moral rights. You falsely measure yours to see if they exist by seeing if laws and sanctions against others are in place to protect them. >> It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are >> in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every >> legal right is preceded by a moral right." It's also clear that >> you DO believe your legal right to be free from assault >> is preceded by a moral right to be free from assault, > >Sounds ok so far Then you were wrong to say that you weren't addressing moral rights in your above statement at the top of this post. "It's clear, then, that when advocating legal rights you are in fact advocating moral rights on the basis that "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." You've just replied to that with, "Sounds ok so far." >> and >> that if no laws exist to protect that right, you don't have >> the moral right to be free from assault. > >That is an obvious fallacy. It's the logical conclusion to your argument. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." According to those, if "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." and "[you] measure your right to be free from physical assault by looking to see if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]", you would have to falsely conclude that you have no moral right to be free from their abuse if there were no laws and sanctions against them. It's as simple and as wrong as that. >Denying the Antecedent >A= moral right >B= legal right > >A therefore B >Not B, therefore >Not A THAT denies the consequent, you stupid dummy. You clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding even the of simplest syllogisms. If we were to put you argument into a syllogistic framework it would go like this. According to your statements; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." we have; 1) If x holds a legal right (antecedent), then x holds a moral right (consequent). 2) x doesn't hold a legal right (denies the antecedent (invalid)) therefore 3) x doesn't hold a moral right. YOUR argument does deny the antecedent, but not in the form you tried but failed to describe. How can you not know that your above example denies the consequent rather than denying the antecedent? Why, after all these years on these news groups are you still so ignorant where simple syllogisms are concerned? I'll tell you why - it's because you're a slacker, Ditch - a lazy, idle slacker. >>>>>If laws against assault >>>>>imply legal rights, then I conclude that laws against abuse do also. >>>> >>>> Laws don't codify a right, and conversely, the lack of >>>> any laws protecting people doesn't mean to say those >>>> people don't hold rights. >>> >>>That's basically false unless you are equivocating back and forth between >>>legal and moral rights. >> >> No, it's perfectly true. > >Please don't hack my sentences apart I do what I please, and asking me not to trim the rubbish from your sentences while you snip whole posts away in sheer embarrassment is a bit rich coming from you, Ditch. There's a whole argument at the bottom of this post that you've repeatedly snipped at every turn in high dudgeon to avoid being seen as the stupid liar you are, so don't go telling me not to snip, especially when my snips are but to cut away your stupid snides and petty quips. I leave what's relevant, and if asked to respond to what I've snipped, I do. I don't run away like you and rick do at every turn when asked to explain my position. >>>>>> According to Dutch, he only has a right to be free from >>>>>> assault if laws are in place to stop others assaulting him, >>>>> >>>>>Right, I only have a "legal right" based on those laws. >>>> >>>> No, you have a moral right against assault, even if laws >>>> protecting that right don't exist. >>> >>>I wasn't addressing the issue of "moral rights". >> >> You're lying again, Ditch. >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >You're equivocating again. No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights when addressing legal rights. >> Being that you believe "Every legal right is preceded by a >> moral right .." how can you honestly say that you wasn't >> addressing moral rights when advocating legal rights? > >Because I was talking about the connection between laws and legal rights. We all know the connection between laws and legal rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by pretending you were trying to make a connection that's already established and apparent. Now that you've declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop lying. >>>>>> and he uses that same rule to reason whether animals >>>>>> hold rights as well. >>>>> >>>>>So I do. Show how the reasoning is flawed if you disagree. >>>> >>>> If your rule dictates that a person only holds a right >>>> against another because the law says so, >>> >>>A legal right, not a moral right. >> >> Your constant switching between moral and legal rights >> doesn't help you here, either. > >You are either confused or equivocating. No, but you've been trying to equivocate between the two from the start, unsuccessfully. >>>> you would >>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>> as good. >>> >>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that moral right. You, on the other hand have it the other way around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against those who would assault you, when looking, you would have no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >> be free from persecution and grim experiments. > >They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another because the law says so, those Jews had no moral right not to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse, and Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit because their law said so. >> You would >> have to conclude that women held no rights against their >> husbands who were legally allowed to beat them with a >> stick no thicker than the width of their thumb. You would >> have to conclude that men had the right to beat them. Your >> reasoning holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the >> ages as good. > >"Good"?? Now you are referring to "moral rights". Always have been, while you try to get some wriggle room by jumping back and forth between legal and moral rights. >>>>>> Take foxes, for example. Now that >>>>>> fox hunting with hounds has been banned in Britain he >>>>>> believes they hold a right against man not to be hunted >>>>>> with his hounds. Read the discussion I had with him on >>>>>> this issue where he concedes, "It is reasonable to say >>>>>> that they hold rights against fox hunters though." >>>>> >>>>>Very good. >>>> >>>> Then, do you believe that the fox didn't hold the right >>>> to be free from abuse until new laws were enacted to >>>> protect it from that abuse? If the laws were relaxed >>>> or repealed, would you then say that the fox no longer >>>> held the right to be free from abuse? >>> >>>Correct, referring to LEGAL RIGHTS. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >a=>b=>c > >Moral rights=>Laws=>Legal rights > >There are an undetermined number of 'a', not all of which are followed by >'b', but all the 'b's' are preceded by 'a's' and followed by 'c's'. Crap. How can "Laws" come before "Legal rights", you idiot? Laws are put in place after a legal right has been established. Not the other way around. As usual, you have it all backwards. >> According to you, then, if the laws protecting that fox's >> moral right to be free from our abuse are repealed, that >> fox loses its moral right to be free from abuse, first. > >No, it loses it's legal right. The moral right cannot be repealed. Yet further down this page you declare, "Yes it can be violated." You're all over the place, switching from one stance to another whenever the mood takes you. You're also on record saying; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 Society doesn't overrule their inalienable right not to be killed, you idiot, and you've only just finished conceding that by writing, "The moral right cannot be repealed." Make up your dull mind. >> Let's look at another example. > >> "Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of >> extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no >> longer need federal protection there, the Bush >> administration said Thursday. >> .... >> farmers will encounter fewer bureaucratic hurdles in >> dealing with wolves that harass livestock, said Rob >> Anderson, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm >> Bureau. The Minnesota and Wisconsin plans would >> allow limited killing of problem wolves, an issue under >> discussion in Michigan." >> http://tinyurl.com/sxple >> >> According to your rule those protected grey wolves >> once held the moral right not to be killed by us, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..", but >> now their legal right not to be shot by farmers has been >> relaxed, which, according to your rule means they no >> longer have the moral right not to be shot by farmers. > >Legal right. You're trying to equivocate between legal and moral rights again, but that line doesn't get you off the hook. According to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." That being so, when those grey wolves had legal protection it was preceded by a moral right against us not to be shot because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." A moral right, such as the moral right not to be shot is always an inalienable right once declared, whether that right belongs to humans or animals. >> What you need to understand is that the moral right to >> be free from abuse is always an inalienable right; > >I didn't say otherwise You did, and you're just about to again. >> it cannot be violated. > >Yes it can be violated. There it is. Above, when I said "that the moral right to be free from abuse is always an inalienable right", you replied, "I didn't say otherwise.", but now you're saying that they aren't inalienable and CAN be violated. You're all over the place and don't have a clue. Inalienable rights are by definition inalienable, meaning they can't be violated, you stupid imbecile. >> Clearly, then, your understanding >> of the meaning of rights is flawed if you believe laws >> codify them. > >Clearly it is *you* with the flawed understanding. No, my understanding of rights is perfectly clear. You, on the other hand, believe that laws codify a moral right, and that if no laws exist protecting that right, then that moral right doesn't exist. Look below this paragraph where you blurt out, "Laws are evidence of rights." If laws are evidence of rights you would have to concede that Nazis held the right to experiment on Jews, and that the Jews held no moral right to deny them their trespass upon them. >>>>>> [start Dutch] >>>>>> >>>>Laws are evidence of rights. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs >>>>>> >>> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made >>>>>> >>> illegal, dummy? >>>>> >>>>>Here you built an absurd strawman that animals ought to be moral agents. >>>> >>>> False. I've never suggested or implied that animals >>>> ought to be moral agents. You're lying now. >>> >>>Then what did you mean by "foxes hold a right against hound dogs" ? >> >> That word string is part of a whole sentence asking >> you if you believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs >> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. >> I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against >> hound dogs. Learn to read. > >Your statement intoduced the idea. No, my question asked if YOU believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against hound dogs. Learn to read. >>>>>> >>Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who >>>>>> >>are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they >>>>>> >>hold rights against fox hunters though. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > Well done; you've just acknowledged that all animals >>>>>> > currently protected by anti-abuse laws hold rights >>>>>> > against us. >>>>> >>>>>Which is what I said in the first place. >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> No, > >Yes I just knew you'd have no option but to snip my reply away in embarrassment. In fact you've snipped the entire last half of my post away, leaving everything unanswered for at least the second time. <re-re-restore> No, that's not what you said in the first place. What you said in the first place was; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >> That's what I have been saying all along. >> [end] >> Dutch Jun 5 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f94l7 That above statement is clearly a lie when we look at your other statements rejecting the proposition of animal rights. It's NOT what you've been "saying ALL along", so stop lying. I can dig out even more statements from you rejecting the proposition if you want me to. >> And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from >> causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, >> he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals >> don't hold rights against us after all, > >They don't They do, but according to you; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Now match that statement to mine concerning your rule; "And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit." > Should we view tham as holding moral rights against us? Yes, we should. >That's another question, one I would not take up with you That's a lie, seeing as you've only just finished asking it. >> and that we can use them any way we see fit. > >We don't "use" animals killed collaterally. I didn't say that we use them. What I DID say was that, according to your rule, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit. Statements from you show this to be a correct representation of your position; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Can you see the idiocy of your position? To paraphrase; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." All I did was exchange the term "animal" for "human", leaving the rule itself in place. Now, if we look at another statement from you telling us how rights work; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 and then apply your rule, "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." the idiocy of your position regarding rights becomes clear. >> He's all over the place and doesn't >> have a clue, and that's why he feels "irrevocably indebted" to >> the animals he eats but can't explain why. > >I did explain. No, you whiffed off and snipped every post instead of explaining your position, only to now insist that you did explain it. >They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs. But you've only just insisted that they hold rights against us. How can an animal hold rights against if in fact "They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs"? >What greater service could an animal do? The animal doesn't "do" anything, let alone provide you a service. You're still caught up in agreement with Harrison's argument that insists animals enter into a bargain with us. You still believe that, "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David (Harrison) says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >> He's totally lost and confused about the whole thing. > >You've been equivocating between legal rights and moral rights No, I didn't even mention legal rights in my post to Harrison. <end restore> You snipped all that away in embarrassment because you're an unethical liar and a fraud, Ditch. You have no reason to snip that evidence of your lies and stupidity away other than the fact that you simply can't bear to be seen that way. <end restore> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:49:26 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:21:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>> >> Trying to snip away your quotes and the discussion that >> follows them only shows you know you're hosed, Ditch. > >Your elaborate concoctions are already taking up too much space in the >Google archives Google archives can easily cope, which is more than I can say about you, nebbish. In this post you've snipped away, yet again, there are some very important points that you need to answer, not least your view that Nazis had the legal right and thus the moral right that preceded it to experiment on Jews, so how about growing some balls and addressing your position on that? <restore> >>>>>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >>>>>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >>>>>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist >>>>>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must >>>>>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who >>>>>> would abuse them." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp >>>>> >>>>>Those statements refer to *legal* rights, a fact which >>>>>ought to be obvious since I used the word "laws" in both >>>>>sentences. >>>> >>>> Then, are you trying to imply that your above statement >>>> doesn't apply to our moral rights, that we don't have the >>>> moral right to be free from assault by looking to see if >>>> laws protect them? >>> >>>I'm not "trying to imply" anything, the meaning of my words >>>is transparent. I was talking about legal rights. >> >> No, you're lying, and I can prove it. During a discussion >> with Harrison on the issue of rights you declared that, >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..." > >I would still agree with that. Then you cannot lie by claiming you were talking *only* about legal rights in that above statement at the top of this post; you were talking about your moral right to be free from assault and seeing if it exists "by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault [you]". "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp <end restore> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right, that's >> how we know to create legal rights. >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> From those, "when looking if laws and sanctions exist >> against anyone who would assault [you]" to see if you >> have the legal right and thus the moral right to be free >> from their assault, any absence of those laws and >> sanctions would tell you you had no rights against them, >> by your false reckoning. > >That's a fallacy. It's your argument, and though you know it's a fallacy you'll still continue to use it. >Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them If you believe that is so, you cannot now claim that your above statement at the top of this post didn't refer to your moral rights as well as your legal rights, because according to you, "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", so stop lying. >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>> >>>You're equivocating again. >> >> No, I'm not. You were addressing moral rights while >> advocating legal rights, so stop lying. If, according to >> you, "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right", >> you cannot say that you weren't addressing moral rights >> when addressing legal rights. > >I can and I was. No, you can't, because according to you "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Each time you declare a legal right exists you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it. That being so, you cannot continue to lie by claiming your above quote at the top of this post referred ONLY to legal rights; you referred to your moral rights as well if "EVERY legal right is preceded by a moral right." It's as simple as that. >> We all know the connection between laws and legal >> rights, dummy, so stop trying to get off the hook by >> pretending you were trying to make a connection that's >> already established and apparent. > >It's not apparent at all. Yes, it is. We're all aware of the connection between laws and legal rights, so it's no use trying to derail the argument onto that connection rather than what you actually wrote and then subsequently snipped away at the top of this post. >> Now that you've >> declared "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >> you automatically declare both at the same time, so stop >> lying. > >I was simply not talking about moral rights Since you declared, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right" and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", each time you refer to a legal right you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it, so stop lying. >>>>>> you would >>>>>> then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>>>>> You would have to conclude that women held no >>>>>> rights against their husbands who were legally >>>>>> allowed to beat them with a stick no thicker than the >>>>>> width of their thumb. You would have to conclude >>>>>> that men had the right to beat them. Your reasoning >>>>>> holds all sorts of rights violations throughout the ages >>>>>> as good. >>>>> >>>>>You're talking about moral rights, my comment referred to legal rights. >>>> >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." >>>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>> >>>Right, but not all moral rights are necessarily followed by laws, >>>therefore we cannot infer legal rights from moral rights. >> >> Of course we can, you stupid imbecile. If I have the moral >> right not to be assaulted we can infer a legal right from that >> moral right. > >No we cannot. I've just shown that we can. I have the moral right to be free from anothers' physical assault, and from that moral right a legal right can be asserted. You simply don't have a clue. >> You, on the other hand have it the other way >> around by inferring a moral right from a legal one with; >> >> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault >> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone >> who would assault me. >> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp > >There's nothing about moral rights in that statement. There is when we consider that, according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", and, "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them.", because each time you refer to a legal right you automatically declare that a moral right preceded it, so stop lying. >> It's clear from that that if no laws and sanctions exist against >> those who would assault you, when looking, you would have >> no moral right against them either, by your reckoning, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." > >There's that fallacy again. It's your argument, so if you're now conceding that it's a fallacy you'll have to drop it. >>>> So, back on track now that that little attempt to dodge the >>>> issue is put to rest, if your rule dictates that a person only >>>> holds a right against another because the law says so, you >>>> would then have to conclude that the Jews held no right to >>>> be free from persecution and grim experiments. >>> >>>They did not in fact hold LEGAL rights, since the Nazis extinguished those >>>LEGAL rights by removing the laws protecting Jews. >> >> That being so, according to your rule that dictates a person >> only holds a legal right and thus a moral right against another >> because the law says so > >Wrong You cannot escape what you wrote, however hard you try or snip it away. "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp and "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx That being so, according to you, the legal right to experiment on Jews was preceded by a moral right to experiment on them. The Nazis had a moral right to abuse them, according to you, because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> those Jews had no moral right not >> to be abused if they had no legal rights against that abuse > >Same fallacy. It's you argument, because according to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx Nazis had the legal right to experiment on Jews, as far as they were concerned, and according to you, being that they had the legal right to experiment on them it follows that a moral right to experiment on them existed before that legal right. >> and Nazis had every right to abuse them as they see fit >> because their law said so. > >They had the legal right to abuse the Jews Then you cannot now assert that a moral right to experiment on them didn't exist before they had a legal right to abuse them, because according to your view, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right", Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx Now let's unsnip all you've ran from embarrassment and see if you have the balls to defend you position. <restore> >Denying the Antecedent >A= moral right >B= legal right > >A therefore B >Not B, therefore >Not A THAT denies the consequent, you stupid dummy. You clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about regarding even the of simplest syllogisms. If we were to put you argument into a syllogistic framework it would go like this. According to your statements; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right.", and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me." we have; 1) If x holds a legal right (antecedent), then x holds a moral right (consequent). 2) x doesn't hold a legal right (denies the antecedent (invalid)) therefore 3) x doesn't hold a moral right. YOUR argument does deny the antecedent, but not in the form you tried but failed to describe. How can you not know that your above example denies the consequent rather than denying the antecedent? Why, after all these years on these news groups are you still so ignorant where simple syllogisms are concerned? I'll tell you why - it's because you're a slacker, Ditch - a lazy, idle slacker. <end restore> I'm hardly surprised to see you snip all that away in sheer embarrassment, but nevertheless, you do need to be shown that you simply haven't a clue where logic is concerned, so stop pretending that you do. Now let's deal with the rest of the post you snipped away, obviously because you're incapable of dealing with it and addressing your lies. <restore> >> According to you, then, if the laws protecting that fox's >> moral right to be free from our abuse are repealed, that >> fox loses its moral right to be free from abuse, first. > >No, it loses it's legal right. The moral right cannot be repealed. Yet further down this page you declare, "Yes it can be violated." You're all over the place, switching from one stance to another whenever the mood takes you. You're also on record saying; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 Society doesn't overrule their inalienable right not to be killed, you idiot, and you've only just finished conceding that by writing, "The moral right cannot be repealed." Make up your dull mind. >> Let's look at another example. > >> "Gray wolves have recovered fully from the brink of >> extinction in the western Great Lakes region and no >> longer need federal protection there, the Bush >> administration said Thursday. >> .... >> farmers will encounter fewer bureaucratic hurdles in >> dealing with wolves that harass livestock, said Rob >> Anderson, legislative counsel for the Michigan Farm >> Bureau. The Minnesota and Wisconsin plans would >> allow limited killing of problem wolves, an issue under >> discussion in Michigan." >> http://tinyurl.com/sxple >> >> According to your rule those protected grey wolves >> once held the moral right not to be killed by us, because >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right ..", but >> now their legal right not to be shot by farmers has been >> relaxed, which, according to your rule means they no >> longer have the moral right not to be shot by farmers. > >Legal right. You're trying to equivocate between legal and moral rights again, but that line doesn't get you off the hook. According to you, "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right .." That being so, when those grey wolves had legal protection it was preceded by a moral right against us not to be shot because "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." A moral right, such as the moral right not to be shot is always an inalienable right once declared, whether that right belongs to humans or animals. >> What you need to understand is that the moral right to >> be free from abuse is always an inalienable right; > >I didn't say otherwise You did, and you're just about to again. >> it cannot be violated. > >Yes it can be violated. There it is. Above, when I said "that the moral right to be free from abuse is always an inalienable right", you replied, "I didn't say otherwise.", but now you're saying that they aren't inalienable and CAN be violated. You're all over the place and don't have a clue. Inalienable rights are by definition inalienable, meaning they can't be violated, you stupid imbecile. >> Clearly, then, your understanding >> of the meaning of rights is flawed if you believe laws >> codify them. > >Clearly it is *you* with the flawed understanding. No, my understanding of rights is perfectly clear. You, on the other hand, believe that laws codify a moral right, and that if no laws exist protecting that right, then that moral right doesn't exist. Look below this paragraph where you blurt out, "Laws are evidence of rights." If laws are evidence of rights you would have to concede that Nazis held the right to experiment on Jews, and that the Jews held no moral right to deny them their trespass upon them. >>>>>> [start Dutch] >>>>>> >>>>Laws are evidence of rights. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Then, do foxes hold a right against hound dogs >>>>>> >>> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made >>>>>> >>> illegal, dummy? >>>>> >>>>>Here you built an absurd strawman that animals ought to be moral agents. >>>> >>>> False. I've never suggested or implied that animals >>>> ought to be moral agents. You're lying now. >>> >>>Then what did you mean by "foxes hold a right against hound dogs" ? >> >> That word string is part of a whole sentence asking >> you if you believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs >> now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. >> I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against >> hound dogs. Learn to read. > >Your statement intoduced the idea. No, my question asked if YOU believe foxes hold a right against hound dogs now that fox hunting with hounds has been made illegal. I wasn't declaring that I believe foxes hold rights against hound dogs. Learn to read. >>>>>> >>Rights cannot be held against non-human animals, who >>>>>> >>are not moral agents. It is reasonable to say that they >>>>>> >>hold rights against fox hunters though. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > Well done; you've just acknowledged that all animals >>>>>> > currently protected by anti-abuse laws hold rights >>>>>> > against us. >>>>> >>>>>Which is what I said in the first place. >>>> >>>> No >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> No, > >Yes I just knew you'd have no option but to snip my reply away in embarrassment. In fact you've snipped the entire last half of my post away, leaving everything unanswered for at least the second time. <re-re-restore> No, that's not what you said in the first place. What you said in the first place was; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 >> That's what I have been saying all along. >> [end] >> Dutch Jun 5 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f94l7 That above statement is clearly a lie when we look at your other statements rejecting the proposition of animal rights. It's NOT what you've been "saying ALL along", so stop lying. I can dig out even more statements from you rejecting the proposition if you want me to. >> And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from >> causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, >> he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals >> don't hold rights against us after all, > >They don't They do, but according to you; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Now match that statement to mine concerning your rule; "And, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, he gets all confused and concludes from that that animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit." > Should we view tham as holding moral rights against us? Yes, we should. >That's another question, one I would not take up with you That's a lie, seeing as you've only just finished asking it. >> and that we can use them any way we see fit. > >We don't "use" animals killed collaterally. I didn't say that we use them. What I DID say was that, according to your rule, being that there are no laws preventing farmers from causing the collateral deaths of animals in crop production, animals don't hold rights against us after all, and that we can use them any way we see fit. Statements from you show this to be a correct representation of your position; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s Can you see the idiocy of your position? To paraphrase; "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." All I did was exchange the term "animal" for "human", leaving the rule itself in place. Now, if we look at another statement from you telling us how rights work; "It's exactly how rights work. Men are sent to war in some cases to near certain death because society deems the reason sufficient to overrule their right to live." Dutch 17 Jun 2005 http://tinyurl.com/f9j58 and then apply your rule, "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* humans is acceptable, then the theoretical concept of "human rights" collapses utterly and must be discarded in favor of a more logical world- view." the idiocy of your position regarding rights becomes clear. >> He's all over the place and doesn't >> have a clue, and that's why he feels "irrevocably indebted" to >> the animals he eats but can't explain why. > >I did explain. No, you whiffed off and snipped every post instead of explaining your position, only to now insist that you did explain it. >They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs. But you've only just insisted that they hold rights against us. How can an animal hold rights against if in fact "They live and die for no other reason but to serve our needs"? >What greater service could an animal do? The animal doesn't "do" anything, let alone provide you a service. You're still caught up in agreement with Harrison's argument that insists animals enter into a bargain with us. You still believe that, "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David (Harrison) says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 >> He's totally lost and confused about the whole thing. > >You've been equivocating between legal rights and moral rights No, I didn't even mention legal rights in my post to Harrison. <end restore> You snipped all that away in embarrassment because you're an unethical liar and a fraud, Ditch. You have no reason to snip that evidence of your lies and stupidity away other than the fact that you simply can't bear to be seen that way. <end restore> Keep running and snipping, liar Ditch, if you think it helps relieve some of your embarrassment. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:54:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:45:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > regurgitated the same old tripe >>>> >>>>You need to grow up Derek. >>> >>> You need to start addressing posts >> >>I've addressed every point. > > No, you haven't, nebbish. You always whiff off when > the going gets too tough for you Bullshit, I engage in plenty of tough debates with much smarter people than you. What's happening here is that you are afraid to face me in a rational head-to-head debate on ANY one issue, so you paste together these massive monstrosities, so repetitious, so ponderous and convoluted that you know no-one in their right mind would ever take the time to wade through them. That way you can claim victory by default. Make one salient point that you think I disagree with and let's have at it, but if you think I or anyone cares about your long drawn-out diatribes you're very deluded. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
Much too long Derek.
|
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On 2/13/2006 7:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2006 11:29:17 -0800, wrote: > >> I believe that even trees, plants are alive. So all the years i was in >> confusion what to eat. >> >> I don't remember date, surely since 01.01.2005 i am vegeterian. I was >> never addicted to it anyway. >> >> Yes, i know their are always bacteria present in my vegeterian food. >> But i am not going to get bogged down by this logic. >> >> Human beings have killed more animals than dinasaures. > > It always comes down to what you want to promote life for. No reason to promote it for non-existent livestock, ****wit. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Vegetarian Bill Gates: 'Livestock produces 51% of world's greenhouse gases' | Vegan | |||
| Livestock falling ill in fracking regions | General Cooking | |||
| The livestock auction | General Cooking | |||
| Who eats corn? Mostly livestock | Vegan | |||
| Further reflections on the bogus "efficiency" critique of feedinggrain to livestock | Vegan | |||
![Derek[_2_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
