 |
|
| 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.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote >> >> The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule >> statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the >> statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds together >> if >> veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts of >> animal harm. It does not do that. >> >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity; >> >> >> >> "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." >> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >> > >> > I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >> > makes no difference to the logic here. >> >> Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the first >> sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire >> paragraph >> is... >> >> <----start------> >> Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans. > > Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a > result > of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global > warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances". You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference between doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something that kills outright. >> We don't >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans. > > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it > is still there. On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents, not on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals. > >> 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. > > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that > are > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet > more > animals. It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think, then that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either way, so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy between farming animals and not doing so, provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly. >> <----end-----> >> >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet" >> status >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham. > > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that > it > is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous. I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating, misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done with honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable. >> Animals are killed in large >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy in >> that light is an outright lie. > > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve > fewer > violations of animal rights than most readily available plant foods. That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view. > >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:53:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > squirmed pitifully >> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >[..] >> Dutch's argument >> denies the antecedent, and because I put it into syllogistic >> form to show him his error you stupidly believe that it is >> MY argument instead. > >That fallacy does not appear anywhere in my statements "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal rights doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >> It as plain as can be. If he was referring to his legal rights >> he would've written, >> >> "I measure my *LEGAL* right to be free from physical >> assault by looking if laws and sanctions (LEGAL >> RIGHTS) exist against anyone who would assault me." >> >> and that would be a meaningless statement because it's >> plainly obvious that one can measure their legal right by >> looking to see if legal rights exist. > >You can't look at "legal rights", they aren't written down, you can only >look at laws. Laws are legal documents, they imply legal rights So, you measure your right to be free from physical abuse by looking at legal documents to see if it exists. >> No, he was clearly >> referring to his moral rights and looking to see if they >> exist by firstly looking to see if legal rights exist to then >> protect them. > >Nope, see above. Above, you wrote, "... you can only look at laws. Laws are legal documents, they imply legal rights", so it's clear that you were referring to your moral rights and looking into legal documents to see if they exist. >>>> and he no doubt uses that >>>> same rule to decide holocaust Jews held no moral rights >>>> against the Nazis who abused them with impunity. >>> >>>The relevant quotes I have so far seen you provide from him >>>a >>> >>>"Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >>> >>>"Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." >>> >>>In neither of these quotes does he claim that absence of >>>a legal right implies absense of a moral right. >> >> When included along with his statement regarding >> Nazis and their alleged legal right to abuse Jews; >> >> "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >> because they rewrote the laws." >> >> he more than implies that an absence of their legal >> rights means an absence of their moral rights, because >> if >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> >> and >> >> "Nazis had the legal right to abuse Jews because they >> rewrote the laws.", >> >> that legal right meant Nazis had the moral right to >> make absent the moral rights of holocaust Jews. >> >> Look further up this thread where I came in. Rupert >> asked Dutch, " So you think if the whole world suddenly >> decided Jews have no rights, then it would be so?", and >> Dutch replied," Yes, but it won't happen" > >Right, it won't. It never has and it never will. Nevertheless, if the world suddenly decided Jews have no rights, then it would be so, according to your view on rights. And besides, elsewhere in this thread in answer to that you wrote, ".... the holocaust, it was an aberration. *It's **not** the only time it has happened.*", so how can you NOW say, "It never has and it never will.", you stupid imbecile? Do you deny the holocaust? >>>> >It is also clear that what he says is correct. >>>> >>>> No, he has the right to be free from our physical assault >>>> whether legal rights against us exist or not. >>> >>>Not if "right" is used to mean "legal right" he doesn't. >> >> Of course not, but he was clearly referring to his moral >> rights. If he was referring to his legal rights he would've >> written, "I measure my *LEGAL* right to be free from >> physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions (LEGAL >> RIGHTS) exist against anyone who would assault me." >> And that would be a meaningless statement because it's >> plainly obvious that one can measure their legal right by >> looking to see if legal rights exist. > >See above. That's a non-answer and a dodge, nebbish. >> Dutch is firmly of the belief that our moral rights aren't >> inherent, but "*inferred to be real*" by looking to see if >> legal rights exist to protect them. He has it all backwards! > >That's incorrect Look at your quote below this line, liar Ditch. >> "Rights are not inherent, they are formulated by public >> opinion or authority then inferred to be real by laws >> and sanctions." >> Dutch Feb 12 2001 http://tinyurl.com/lrpj5 >> >> As we can plainly see, Dutch holds the view that his >> moral right to be free from assault can only be >> >> "*inferred to be real* by laws and sanctions." >> >> Now go back to his statement which reinforces that >> earlier one; >> >> "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 >> >> He hasn't made a clumsy mistake; he's held these >> views for years and continues to do so. > >None of that makes the case you are attempting to make It makes my case airtight, you miserable liar. > >>>> >> It's this wrong kind of thinking leads you to sporadically >>>> >> declare animals hold no rights. You believe that, because >>>> >> no laws exist to protect them from being butchered by >>>> >> us, then they hold no moral right against us, as in. >>>> >> >>>> >> "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 >>>> >> >>>> >> To paraphrase that stupidity; >>>> >> >>>> >> "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." >>>> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >>>> > >>>> >I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >>>> >makes no difference to the logic here. >>>> >>>> Exactly, and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. He >>>> believes that if animals or humans are routinely killed >>>> without any consequence to the killer, those animals >>>> and humans have no moral right not be killed. >>> >>>I doubt that as well. >> >> It couldn't be any clearer, dummy, > >Now Now nothing, you stupid imbecile. You DO believe that if animals or humans are killed routinely with impunity, then those victims had no rights to begin with, and this view is repeated in your quotes; "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 To paraphrase that stupidity and show you your error; "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. >> and you've only just >> finished conceding that when writing, "I agree that >> replacing the term "animal" with "human" makes no >> difference to the logic here. He believes that, "If we >> are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* >> [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical concept >> of "[human] rights" collapses utterly..." > >He was wrong He was spot on. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:50:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:42:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >"Dave" > wrote in message >>>>> oups.com... >>>>> >> Dutch wrote: >>>>> >>> "Derek" > wrote >>>>> >>> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > >>>>> >>> > wrote: >>>>> >>> >>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >><...> >>>>> >>> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >>>>> >>> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >>>>> >>> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place. >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>Non sequitur >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is >>>>> >>> > therefore not a non sequitur. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The >>>>> >>> Nazi regime was not part of the legitimate evolution >>>>> >>> of human rights, it was a era spawned by insane >>>>> >>> murderers. You need some new material Derek, this >>>>> >>> old Godwin crap was tired the first time around, it's >>>>> >>> really lame now. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS >>>>> >> precede them." >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >>>>> >> because they rewrote the laws" >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment >>>>> >> on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so." >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B] >>>>> >> must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise >>>>> >> [A] and/or premise [b] must also be false. >>>>> > >>>>> >Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. You believe that if a legal right exists, then >>>>> a moral right preceded it, >>>> >>>>He grudgingly retracted that position when he >>>>wrote "Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct." >>> >>> His other quotes make exactly the same categorical claim. >>> He didn't make any mistake. >> >>My only mistake was assuming that readers would read what I said in good >>faith. > > In other words, you didn't want your stupidity revealed. Is it stupid to expect good faith? Perhaps. >>>>> and that because no legal >>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>> >>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>> >>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >> >>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. > > It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show > where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; Since it doesn't apply to my arguments, he correctly attributed it to you. That's the risk you take when you utilize strawmen, fatso. > "Both those statements, being without exception or > qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong > conclusions. > > 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. > 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) > therefore > 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. > > or > > 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. > 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) > therefore > 3) a moral right to x exists. > > To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and > affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's > on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." > > And now, to wriggle away from your stupidity and embarrassment > you're trying to make the claim that they're my arguments rather > than yours. That's it fatso, keep digging that hole. >>>>> This wrong kind of thinking also leads you to believe >>>>> that you ONLY hold a right against physical abuse 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 >>>>> >>>>> You no doubt believe the same was true for holocaust >>>>> Jews as for yourself. You >>>>> >>>>> "measure [a holocaust Jew's] right to be free from >>>>> physical assault by looking to see if laws and >>>>> sanctions exist against anyone who would assault >>>>> [them]. >>>> >>>>It is clear from the context that Dutch is talking about >>>>legal rights. >>> >>> No, he talks of his moral right to be free from physical >>> assault by looking to see if legal rights exist to prevent >>> those who would assault him, and he no doubt uses that >>> same rule to decide holocaust Jews held no moral rights >>> against the Nazis who abused them with impunity. >> >>Nope > > I've shown that I'm right. To yourself, nobody else. >>>>It is also clear that what he says is correct. >>> >>> No, he has the right to be free from our physical assault >>> whether legal rights against us exist or not. >> >>You're addressing your own strawmen Derek. > > What I wrote above is a true statement: you do have > the right to be free from our physical assault whether > legal rights exist to protect that right or not. You, on > the other hand measure your right to be free from > physical assault by looking to see if legal rights exist, > and from there decide that you hold a right to be free > from our physical abuse. You have it all backward! You did it again... fatso. >>>>> It's this wrong kind of thinking leads you to sporadically >>>>> declare animals hold no rights. You believe that, because >>>>> no laws exist to protect them from being butchered by >>>>> us, then they hold no moral right against us, as in. >>>>> >>>>> "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 >>>>> >>>>> To paraphrase that stupidity; >>>>> >>>>> "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." >>>>> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >>>> >>>>I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >>>>makes no difference to the logic here. >>> >>> Exactly, >> >>Exactly wrong > > Exactly right, dummy. Nope.... fatso. >>> and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. He >>> believes that if animals or humans are routinely killed >>> without any consequence to the killer, those animals >>> and humans have no moral right not be killed. >> >>Rights can only exist where it is plausible for them to exist. > > False. Moral rights exist universally, not where you > or any particular society deem plausible. Show where or how they "exist universally". Give some credibility to your ipse dixit. >>It is not >>plausible for example for rights to exist to protect dust mites, the >>microscopic animalia that live on surfaces, in the air, in your hair, your >>bed, on your skin. Humans simply cannot do anything about killing them >>routinely. > > Like I wrote earlier, you believe that just because rights > can be and are violated routinely with impunity, those > victims cannot be said to be rights-holders, and this > follows closely with your other comments; > > "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 > > To paraphrase that stupidity and show how wrong > your views are; > > "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." You just did it again... fatso. Good work! You're the official king the misappropriated quote, equivocation, strawman, and now the mangled quote. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:11:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Dave" > wrote >>>> Derek wrote: >>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:42:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>> >Derek wrote: >>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >> >"Dave" > wrote >>>>> >> >> Dutch wrote: >>>>> >> >>> "Derek" > wrote >>>>> >> >>> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > >>>>> >> >>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>> >>Derek wrote: >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >><...> >>>>> >> >>> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >>>>> >> >>> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >>>>> >> >>> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place. >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >>Non sequitur >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is >>>>> >> >>> > therefore not a non sequitur. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The >>>>> >> >>> Nazi regime was not part of the legitimate evolution >>>>> >> >>> of human rights, it was a era spawned by insane >>>>> >> >>> murderers. You need some new material Derek, this >>>>> >> >>> old Godwin crap was tired the first time around, it's >>>>> >> >>> really lame now. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic: >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> [A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS >>>>> >> >> precede them." >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> [b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >>>>> >> >> because they rewrote the laws" >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> [A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment >>>>> >> >> on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so." >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B] >>>>> >> >> must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise >>>>> >> >> [A] and/or premise [b] must also be false. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Exactly. You believe that if a legal right exists, then >>>>> >> a moral right preceded it, >>>>> > >>>>> >He grudgingly retracted that position when he >>>>> >wrote "Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct." >>>>> >>>>> His other quotes make exactly the same categorical claim. >>>>> He didn't make any mistake. >>>> >>>> Apparantly he is using an extremely loose definition of "always". >>>> His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >>>> words to be interpreted literally. >>> >>>You may take it literally if you like. >> >> Just as I thought; you didn't "grudgingly retract that >> position" or your categorical statements at all. > >Those aren't my words. No, they were Dave's words. >> You >> gave the impression that you did, but then decided >> not to. Thanks for shitting on Dave's head for me >> while he stuck his neck out for you. > >I have no problem Sure you don't. >>>>> >> and that because no legal >>>>> >> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>> >> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>> > >>>>> >Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>> >then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>> >have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>> >>>> You appear to be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. >>>> Think about it. >>> >>>I saw it when you pointed it out. He's desperate. >> >> How did you miss it when I showed it to you by writing; > >I don't pay a whole lot of attention to your machinations. Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you were paying the right attention you would have noticed that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what you missed but snipped away anyway, again. >> "Both those statements, being without exception or >> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >> conclusions. >> >> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >> >> or >> >> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x exists. >> >> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." Well dummy? Still not paying attention? Why did you try to distance yourself from your arguments by pretending they were mine after I demolished them? >>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>us not to be abused. >> >> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >> be killed. How bizarre. > >It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >grasp it. Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:52:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... [..] >>>>>> and that because no legal >>>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>> >>>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>> >>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>> >>>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. >> >> It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show >> where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; > >Since it doesn't apply to my arguments They most certainly do, as I'll show. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal rights doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >he correctly attributed it to you. He wrongly thought it was my argument, but we've now established that it was my presentation of yours in syllogistic form to show you the fallacy you were trying to invoke. >> "Both those statements, being without exception or >> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >> conclusions. >> >> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >> >> or >> >> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x exists. >> >> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." >> >> And now, to wriggle away from your stupidity and embarrassment >> you're trying to make the claim that they're my arguments rather >> than yours. > >That's it Oh yes, I already knew that. >>>>>> This wrong kind of thinking also leads you to believe >>>>>> that you ONLY hold a right against physical abuse 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> You no doubt believe the same was true for holocaust >>>>>> Jews as for yourself. You >>>>>> >>>>>> "measure [a holocaust Jew's] right to be free from >>>>>> physical assault by looking to see if laws and >>>>>> sanctions exist against anyone who would assault >>>>>> [them]. >>>>> >>>>>It is clear from the context that Dutch is talking about >>>>>legal rights. >>>> >>>> No, he talks of his moral right to be free from physical >>>> assault by looking to see if legal rights exist to prevent >>>> those who would assault him, and he no doubt uses that >>>> same rule to decide holocaust Jews held no moral rights >>>> against the Nazis who abused them with impunity. >>> >>>Nope >> >> I've shown that I'm right. > >To yourself, nobody else. I'm happy with that. >>>>>It is also clear that what he says is correct. >>>> >>>> No, he has the right to be free from our physical assault >>>> whether legal rights against us exist or not. >>> >>>You're addressing your own strawmen Derek. >> >> What I wrote above is a true statement: you do have >> the right to be free from our physical assault whether >> legal rights exist to protect that right or not. You, on >> the other hand measure your right to be free from >> physical assault by looking to see if legal rights exist, >> and from there decide that you hold a right to be free >> from our physical abuse. You have it all backward! > >You did it again Did what, you useless, lazy imbecile? >>>>>> It's this wrong kind of thinking leads you to sporadically >>>>>> declare animals hold no rights. You believe that, because >>>>>> no laws exist to protect them from being butchered by >>>>>> us, then they hold no moral right against us, as in. >>>>>> >>>>>> "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 >>>>>> >>>>>> To paraphrase that stupidity; >>>>>> >>>>>> "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." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >>>>> >>>>>I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >>>>>makes no difference to the logic here. >>>> >>>> Exactly, >>> >>>Exactly wrong >> >> Exactly right, dummy. > >Nope Then explain why instead of just sitting there like a lump of shit, you lazy *******. >>>> and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. He >>>> believes that if animals or humans are routinely killed >>>> without any consequence to the killer, those animals >>>> and humans have no moral right not be killed. >>> >>>Rights can only exist where it is plausible for them to exist. >> >> False. Moral rights exist universally, not where you >> or any particular society deem plausible. > >Show where or how they "exist universally". Give some credibility to your ipse dixit. I don't need to look at legal documents before deciding whether people hold rights, but because you do I've brought something here you should've looked up yourself. [Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.] http://tinyurl.com/gcodx >>>It is not >>>plausible for example for rights to exist to protect dust mites, the >>>microscopic animalia that live on surfaces, in the air, in your hair, your >>>bed, on your skin. Humans simply cannot do anything about killing them >>>routinely. >> >> Like I wrote earlier, you believe that just because rights >> can be and are violated routinely with impunity, those >> victims cannot be said to be rights-holders, and this >> follows closely with your other comments; >> >> "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 >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity and show how wrong >> your views are; >> >> "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." > >You just did it again. Did what again, dodger? Do you really think you can run away like this and still believe you've made your case? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:22:05 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > >> "Derek" > wrote > ><..> > >> > Then why didn't he correct Jon in this exchange (below) > >> > between him and Pearl, before Jon made a fool of himself? > >> > >> Jon did no such thing, file that under another of your delusions. > > > >... > > Yes, being a self-confessed delusional himself, Dutch ought > to be careful about implying others are. Too right. That glasshouse was smashed to smithereens ~long~ ago. > >> > [start -Jon] > >> > > > > > Mr Chupacabra and his associate Mr Suspect have > >> > > > > > documented them all. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > False. 'chupacabra' is 'suspect', liar ball/leif/rudy/wilson/... > >> > > > > >> > > > Prove it, bitch > >> > > > >> > > You really are in an > >> > > >> > Thought so - no proof. > >> > >> The proof is all there, you're the quote-miner, just check. > > > >You're replying to ball/leif/etc, silly ditch. Bwahahahahah! > > HAW HAW HAW. Yep. Too funny! > >High Five, D! > > High 5, P! High 10, n'all!  . |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:53:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > squirmed pitifully >>> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >>[..] >>> Dutch's argument >>> denies the antecedent, and because I put it into syllogistic >>> form to show him his error you stupidly believe that it is >>> MY argument instead. >> >>That fallacy does not appear anywhere in my statements > > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > is a categorical statement you made, > and that proposition > forms the first premise; Assuming that the law-making process is not hijacked by homicidal maniacs. I would not expect that would need to be stipulated. How about this.. get that straight then we can carry on from there. Until you do, the rest is just compounding your error. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:52:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. > [..] >>>>>>> and that because no legal >>>>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>> >>>>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. >>> >>> It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show >>> where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; >> >>Since it doesn't apply to my arguments > > They most certainly do No it doesn't, as I have clearly demonstrated. [..] >>You just did it again. > > Did what again, dodger? Compounded your errors, again. > Do you really think you can run > away like this and still believe you've made your case? It's unfortunate that you think you're credible, it's not the case, hope this helps. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote > >> > >> The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule > >> statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the > >> statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds together > >> if > >> veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts of > >> animal harm. It does not do that. > >> > >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity; > >> >> > >> >> "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." > >> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s > >> > > >> > I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" > >> > makes no difference to the logic here. > >> > >> Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the first > >> sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire > >> paragraph > >> is... > >> > >> <----start------> > >> Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans. > > > > Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a > > result > > of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global > > warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances". > > You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference between > doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something that > kills outright. Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between collateral and intentional animal deaths? There is little doubt that human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts, floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions. > >> We don't > >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans. > > > > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it > > is still there. > > On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents, not > on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals. Granted. > >> 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. > > > > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that > > are > > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological > > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet > > more > > animals. > > It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it > into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products > actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think, then > that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either > way, Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets. > so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy > between farming animals and not doing so, Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in between,... > provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly. Yes. That's a very important qualification. > >> <----end-----> > >> > >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet" > >> status > >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham. > > > > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that > > it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous. > > I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating, > misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done with > honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable. > > >> Animals are killed in large > >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy in > >> that light is an outright lie. > > > > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more > > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but > > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve > > fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant foods. > > That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view. The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt that some day. > > > >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it > >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > >> > His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his > >> > words to be interpreted literally. > >> > >> You may take it literally if you like. Consider that the Nazis formulated > >> a > >> moral right before changing the laws to allow them to exterminate the > >> jews, > >> that principle was that the jews were a blight on the world and should be > >> exterminated. So in that sense even in this warped instance, a moral > >> right > >> preceded the legal right. > > > > Ah, I see. The confusion is that the term "moral right" means something > > different to you than to me. To me the claim that the Nazis had a moral > > right to exterminate the jews implies that the person making the claim > > believes that there was not anything morally wrong with doing so, not > > merely that the Nazis had formulated such a right. > > It does generally mean that. When we say "They had no right.." we generally > mean subjectively "I think that was wrong..".The point I was trying to make > in that original quote was simply that laws normally come into effect > following a period of moral reflection and debate, where it is decided that > such-and-such "ought to be il/legal" and so a law is enacted. That "ought to > be.." is the contemplation of a moral right, the subsequent law is the > manifestation of it. Normally those "ought to be's" are recognizable > applications of fairness, freedoms, or other such fundamental principles. In > the case of Nazi germany, that process, the legal system along with the > collective conscience (the "ought to be's") was hijacked by homicidal > maniacs. That in no way makes me a proponent of Naziism or arbitrary laws or > morals. Derek is pounding away on a strawman, as always, and as you have > seen he will viciously attack you if you'd don't go along with his little > games. Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather than study your clarifications. Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote >> >> >> >> The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule >> >> statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the >> >> statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds >> >> together >> >> if >> >> veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts >> >> of >> >> animal harm. It does not do that. >> >> >> >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity; >> >> >> >> >> >> "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." >> >> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >> >> > >> >> > I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >> >> > makes no difference to the logic here. >> >> >> >> Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the >> >> first >> >> sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire >> >> paragraph >> >> is... >> >> >> >> <----start------> >> >> Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans. >> > >> > Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a >> > result >> > of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global >> > warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances". >> >> You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference >> between >> doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something >> that >> kills outright. > > Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between > collateral and intentional animal deaths? Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their populations. > There is little doubt that > human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global > warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts, > floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence > of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as > a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions. It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas. >> >> We don't >> >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans. >> > >> > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it >> > is still there. >> >> On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents, >> not >> on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals. > > Granted. That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case. >> >> 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. >> > >> > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that >> > are >> > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological >> > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet >> > more >> > animals. >> >> It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it >> into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products >> actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think, >> then >> that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either >> way, > > Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that > simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets. The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's produced. >> so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy >> between farming animals and not doing so, > > Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in > between,... If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation. >> provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly. > > Yes. That's a very important qualification. > >> >> <----end-----> >> >> >> >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet" >> >> status >> >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham. >> > >> > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that >> > it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous. >> >> I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating, >> misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done >> with >> honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable. >> >> >> Animals are killed in large >> >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy >> >> in >> >> that light is an outright lie. >> > >> > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more >> > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but >> > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve >> > fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant >> > foods. >> >> That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view. > > The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock > farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt > that some day. Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html > >> > >> >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it >> >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive. >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> > >> >> >> > His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >> >> > words to be interpreted literally. >> >> >> >> You may take it literally if you like. Consider that the Nazis >> >> formulated >> >> a >> >> moral right before changing the laws to allow them to exterminate the >> >> jews, >> >> that principle was that the jews were a blight on the world and should >> >> be >> >> exterminated. So in that sense even in this warped instance, a moral >> >> right >> >> preceded the legal right. >> > >> > Ah, I see. The confusion is that the term "moral right" means something >> > different to you than to me. To me the claim that the Nazis had a moral >> > right to exterminate the jews implies that the person making the claim >> > believes that there was not anything morally wrong with doing so, not >> > merely that the Nazis had formulated such a right. >> >> It does generally mean that. When we say "They had no right.." we >> generally >> mean subjectively "I think that was wrong..".The point I was trying to >> make >> in that original quote was simply that laws normally come into effect >> following a period of moral reflection and debate, where it is decided >> that >> such-and-such "ought to be il/legal" and so a law is enacted. That "ought >> to >> be.." is the contemplation of a moral right, the subsequent law is the >> manifestation of it. Normally those "ought to be's" are recognizable >> applications of fairness, freedoms, or other such fundamental principles. >> In >> the case of Nazi germany, that process, the legal system along with the >> collective conscience (the "ought to be's") was hijacked by homicidal >> maniacs. That in no way makes me a proponent of Naziism or arbitrary laws >> or >> morals. Derek is pounding away on a strawman, as always, and as you have >> seen he will viciously attack you if you'd don't go along with his little >> games. > > Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather > than study your clarifications. Perhaps he is more interested in point > scoring than anything else. No doubt, but who in their right mind thinks that you can score with strawmen? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:11:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Dave" > wrote >>>>> Derek wrote: >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:42:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>>> >Derek wrote: >>>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >> >"Dave" > wrote >>>>>> >> >> Dutch wrote: >>>>>> >> >>> "Derek" > wrote >>>>>> >> >>> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > >>>>>> >> >>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>> >>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >><...> >>>>>> >> >>> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >>>>>> >> >>> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >>>>>> >> >>> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place. >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >>Non sequitur >>>>>> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >>> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is >>>>>> >> >>> > therefore not a non sequitur. >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The >>>>>> >> >>> Nazi regime was not part of the legitimate evolution >>>>>> >> >>> of human rights, it was a era spawned by insane >>>>>> >> >>> murderers. You need some new material Derek, this >>>>>> >> >>> old Godwin crap was tired the first time around, it's >>>>>> >> >>> really lame now. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic: >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> [A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS >>>>>> >> >> precede them." >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> [b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >>>>>> >> >> because they rewrote the laws" >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> [A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment >>>>>> >> >> on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so." >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B] >>>>>> >> >> must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise >>>>>> >> >> [A] and/or premise [b] must also be false. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Exactly. You believe that if a legal right exists, then >>>>>> >> a moral right preceded it, >>>>>> > >>>>>> >He grudgingly retracted that position when he >>>>>> >wrote "Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct." >>>>>> >>>>>> His other quotes make exactly the same categorical claim. >>>>>> He didn't make any mistake. >>>>> >>>>> Apparantly he is using an extremely loose definition of "always". >>>>> His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >>>>> words to be interpreted literally. >>>> >>>>You may take it literally if you like. >>> >>> Just as I thought; you didn't "grudgingly retract that >>> position" or your categorical statements at all. >> >>Those aren't my words. > > No, they were Dave's words. Then tell him about it. >>> You >>> gave the impression that you did, but then decided >>> not to. Thanks for shitting on Dave's head for me >>> while he stuck his neck out for you. >> >>I have no problem > > Sure you don't. Correct. >>>>>> >> and that because no legal >>>>>> >> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>> >> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>> >then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>> >have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>> >>>>> You appear to be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. >>>>> Think about it. >>>> >>>>I saw it when you pointed it out. He's desperate. >>> >>> How did you miss it when I showed it to you by writing; >> >>I don't pay a whole lot of attention to your machinations. > > Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if > in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and > it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you > were paying the right attention you would have noticed > that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was > yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what > you missed but snipped away anyway, again. I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't originate, therefore it must be coming from you. >>> "Both those statements, being without exception or >>> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >>> conclusions. >>> >>> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >>> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >>> therefore >>> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >>> >>> or >>> >>> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >>> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >>> therefore >>> 3) a moral right to x exists. >>> >>> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >>> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >>> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." > > Well dummy? Still not paying attention? Why did you try to > distance yourself from your arguments by pretending they > were mine after I demolished them? Because they are entirely your inventions, they don't represent my beliefs, therefore they must be yours. > >>>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>>us not to be abused. >>> >>> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >>> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >>> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >>> be killed. How bizarre. >> >>It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >>grasp it. > > Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a > right against us not to be abused while being deprived > of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right > not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. That's true. Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but never have a right to abuse. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:31:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:11:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Dave" > wrote >>>>>> Derek wrote: >>>>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:42:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>>>> >Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >> >"Dave" > wrote >>>>>>> >> >> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> "Derek" > wrote >>>>>>> >> >>> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> >>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >><...> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place. >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>Non sequitur >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>>>>>> >> >>> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is >>>>>>> >> >>> > therefore not a non sequitur. >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The >>>>>>> >> >>> Nazi regime was not part of the legitimate evolution >>>>>>> >> >>> of human rights, it was a era spawned by insane >>>>>>> >> >>> murderers. You need some new material Derek, this >>>>>>> >> >>> old Godwin crap was tired the first time around, it's >>>>>>> >> >>> really lame now. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic: >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS >>>>>>> >> >> precede them." >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >>>>>>> >> >> because they rewrote the laws" >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment >>>>>>> >> >> on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so." >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B] >>>>>>> >> >> must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise >>>>>>> >> >> [A] and/or premise [b] must also be false. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Exactly. You believe that if a legal right exists, then >>>>>>> >> a moral right preceded it, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >He grudgingly retracted that position when he >>>>>>> >wrote "Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His other quotes make exactly the same categorical claim. >>>>>>> He didn't make any mistake. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparantly he is using an extremely loose definition of "always". >>>>>> His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >>>>>> words to be interpreted literally. >>>>> >>>>>You may take it literally if you like. >>>> >>>> Just as I thought; you didn't "grudgingly retract that >>>> position" or your categorical statements at all. >>> >>>Those aren't my words. >> >> No, they were Dave's words. > >Then tell him about it. He already knows. >>>> You >>>> gave the impression that you did, but then decided >>>> not to. Thanks for shitting on Dave's head for me >>>> while he stuck his neck out for you. >>> >>>I have no problem >> >> Sure you don't. > >Correct. Marvelous. >>>>>>> >> and that because no legal >>>>>>> >> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>> >> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>> >then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>> >have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear to be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. >>>>>> Think about it. >>>>> >>>>>I saw it when you pointed it out. He's desperate. >>>> >>>> How did you miss it when I showed it to you by writing; >>> >>>I don't pay a whole lot of attention to your machinations. >> >> Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if >> in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and >> it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you >> were paying the right attention you would have noticed >> that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was >> yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what >> you missed but snipped away anyway, again. > >I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't >originate I've shown you repeatedly that it is your argument put into syllogistic form to show how it denies the antecedent. Here it is again, just for clarity. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >>>> "Both those statements, being without exception or >>>> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >>>> conclusions. >>>> >>>> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >>>> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >>>> therefore >>>> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >>>> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >>>> therefore >>>> 3) a moral right to x exists. >>>> >>>> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >>>> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >>>> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." >> >> Well dummy? Still not paying attention? Why did you try to >> distance yourself from your arguments by pretending they >> were mine after I demolished them? > >Because they are entirely your inventions No, they are your arguments which I've put into syllogistic form to show where they deny the antecedent to get your point accepted, not mine. >>>>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>>>us not to be abused. >>>> >>>> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >>>> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >>>> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >>>> be killed. How bizarre. >>> >>>It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >>>grasp it. >> >> Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a >> right against us not to be abused while being deprived >> of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right >> not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. > >That's true. Then explain how. How does a moral right to be free from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free from a greater harm? Why DO YOU believe that is it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions hurt the animal, thereby causing harm to it? "Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does." Dutch Mar 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ggxp8 As we can see, you've acknowledged that killing an animal hurts it, causing it harm, so explain why this greater harm carries more moral weight than a lesser harm. >Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but >never have a right to abuse. That doesn't explain how a moral right not to be abused trumps a moral right not to be killed. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:16:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:53:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > squirmed pitifully >>>> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>> >>>[..] >>>> Dutch's argument >>>> denies the antecedent, and because I put it into syllogistic >>>> form to show him his error you stupidly believe that it is >>>> MY argument instead. >>> >>>That fallacy does not appear anywhere in my statements >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> is a categorical statement you made, >> and that proposition forms the first premise; > >Assuming that the law-making process is not hijacked by homicidal maniacs. That desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into your original categorical statement does not show that the above premise is not yours and formed from your own categorical statement. <restore> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:22:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:52:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> [..] >>>>>>>> and that because no legal >>>>>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>> >>>>>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. >>>> >>>> It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show >>>> where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; >>> >>>Since it doesn't apply to my arguments >> >> They most certainly do > >No it doesn't Says you after snipping away the evidence which shows it does apply. <restore> They most certainly do, as I'll show. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >[..] No, snipping away a whole post and running for the door just isn't good enough, nebbish. Stand your ground and defend your beliefs, if you can. <restore> >he correctly attributed it to you. He wrongly thought it was my argument, but we've now established that it was my presentation of yours in syllogistic form to show you the fallacy you were trying to invoke. >> "Both those statements, being without exception or >> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >> conclusions. >> >> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >> >> or >> >> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x exists. >> >> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." >> >> And now, to wriggle away from your stupidity and embarrassment >> you're trying to make the claim that they're my arguments rather >> than yours. > >That's it Oh yes, I already knew that. >>>>>> This wrong kind of thinking also leads you to believe >>>>>> that you ONLY hold a right against physical abuse 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> You no doubt believe the same was true for holocaust >>>>>> Jews as for yourself. You >>>>>> >>>>>> "measure [a holocaust Jew's] right to be free from >>>>>> physical assault by looking to see if laws and >>>>>> sanctions exist against anyone who would assault >>>>>> [them]. >>>>> >>>>>It is clear from the context that Dutch is talking about >>>>>legal rights. >>>> >>>> No, he talks of his moral right to be free from physical >>>> assault by looking to see if legal rights exist to prevent >>>> those who would assault him, and he no doubt uses that >>>> same rule to decide holocaust Jews held no moral rights >>>> against the Nazis who abused them with impunity. >>> >>>Nope >> >> I've shown that I'm right. > >To yourself, nobody else. I'm happy with that. >>>>>It is also clear that what he says is correct. >>>> >>>> No, he has the right to be free from our physical assault >>>> whether legal rights against us exist or not. >>> >>>You're addressing your own strawmen Derek. >> >> What I wrote above is a true statement: you do have >> the right to be free from our physical assault whether >> legal rights exist to protect that right or not. You, on >> the other hand measure your right to be free from >> physical assault by looking to see if legal rights exist, >> and from there decide that you hold a right to be free >> from our physical abuse. You have it all backward! > >You did it again Did what, you useless, lazy imbecile? >>>>>> It's this wrong kind of thinking leads you to sporadically >>>>>> declare animals hold no rights. You believe that, because >>>>>> no laws exist to protect them from being butchered by >>>>>> us, then they hold no moral right against us, as in. >>>>>> >>>>>> "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 >>>>>> >>>>>> To paraphrase that stupidity; >>>>>> >>>>>> "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." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >>>>> >>>>>I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >>>>>makes no difference to the logic here. >>>> >>>> Exactly, >>> >>>Exactly wrong >> >> Exactly right, dummy. > >Nope Then explain why instead of just sitting there like a lump of shit, you lazy *******. >>>> and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. He >>>> believes that if animals or humans are routinely killed >>>> without any consequence to the killer, those animals >>>> and humans have no moral right not be killed. >>> >>>Rights can only exist where it is plausible for them to exist. >> >> False. Moral rights exist universally, not where you >> or any particular society deem plausible. > >Show where or how they "exist universally". Give some credibility to your ipse dixit. I don't need to look at legal documents before deciding whether people hold rights, but because you do I've brought something here you should've looked up yourself. [Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.] http://tinyurl.com/gcodx >>>It is not >>>plausible for example for rights to exist to protect dust mites, the >>>microscopic animalia that live on surfaces, in the air, in your hair, your >>>bed, on your skin. Humans simply cannot do anything about killing them >>>routinely. >> >> Like I wrote earlier, you believe that just because rights >> can be and are violated routinely with impunity, those >> victims cannot be said to be rights-holders, and this >> follows closely with your other comments; >> >> "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 >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity and show how wrong >> your views are; >> >> "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." > >You just did it again. Did what again, dodger? Do you really think you can run away like this and still believe you've made your case? <end restore> |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather >than study your clarifications. No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand clarification when they make no sense. Take his latest, for example; "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against us not to be abused." Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a greater one, but when asked for it he refuses to give it, opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you arse-licking ******? > Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else. If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >> The conclusion logically follows from the premises you >> stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the >> implications of it. > >I provided the clarification of my statement, that is all that should be >required, if you were discussing the issue in good faith. Your statements are categorical and therefore need no further clarification. Your attempts to"clarify" them are just a desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into your original categorical statements so as to avoid the logical implications of them, and that won't do. And snipping the whole post away with those categorical statements won't do, either, so let's put it back again and see if you have the ability to address it. <re-re-restore> >> <re-restore> >> Dutch is of the opinion that; >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > >Under normal circumstances No. EVERY legal right is not preceded by a moral right, under any circumstances. >> and >> >> "Where legal rights exist moral rights always >> precede them." >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx > >Same as above, I should have avoided the word "always" You also used the categorical term "every" in your other quote, and another categorical term "always" in the quote above, so don't try wriggling from your categorical statements by pretending you made one small error, liar Ditch. >> but he's also of the opinion that; >> >> "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews >> because they rewrote the laws" >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx > >They did And while that legal right existed, according to your view on moral rights a moral right to abuse Jews existed and preceded that legal right, making the abuse of Jews morally permissible because; "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx and "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >> their alleged legal right was put in place. > >Non-sequitur The conclusion logically follows from the premises you stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the implications of it. <end re-restore> <end re-re-restore> Snipping and running for the door is not a defence of your position, so I suggest you start defending it in the proper way if you're able. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
*correction*
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:31:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:11:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Dave" > wrote >>>>>> Derek wrote: >>>>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:42:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>>>> >Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >> >"Dave" > wrote >>>>>>> >> >> Dutch wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> "Derek" > wrote >>>>>>> >> >>> > usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> >>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >><...> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >>>>>>> >> >>> >>> their alleged legal right was put in place. >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>Non sequitur >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>>>>>> >> >>> > The conclusion follows from the premises and is >>>>>>> >> >>> > therefore not a non sequitur. >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> No it doesn't follow, for the reasons I elucidated. The >>>>>>> >> >>> Nazi regime was not part of the legitimate evolution >>>>>>> >> >>> of human rights, it was a era spawned by insane >>>>>>> >> >>> murderers. You need some new material Derek, this >>>>>>> >> >>> old Godwin crap was tired the first time around, it's >>>>>>> >> >>> really lame now. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> AFAICS that does nothing to refute the following logic: >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [A] "Where legal rights exist moral rights ALWAYS >>>>>>> >> >> precede them." >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [b] "The Nazis had the legal right to abuse the Jews >>>>>>> >> >> because they rewrote the laws" >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> [A+B] "That being so, Nazis had a moral right to experiment >>>>>>> >> >> on Jews, which proceded their legal right to do so." >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> If premises [A] and [b] are both true then premise [A+B] >>>>>>> >> >> must also be true. If premise [A+B] is false then premise >>>>>>> >> >> [A] and/or premise [b] must also be false. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Exactly. You believe that if a legal right exists, then >>>>>>> >> a moral right preceded it, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >He grudgingly retracted that position when he >>>>>>> >wrote "Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His other quotes make exactly the same categorical claim. >>>>>>> He didn't make any mistake. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparantly he is using an extremely loose definition of "always". >>>>>> His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >>>>>> words to be interpreted literally. >>>>> >>>>>You may take it literally if you like. >>>> >>>> Just as I thought; you didn't "grudgingly retract that >>>> position" or your categorical statements at all. >>> >>>Those aren't my words. >> >> No, they were Dave's words. > >Then tell him about it. He already knows. >>>> You >>>> gave the impression that you did, but then decided >>>> not to. Thanks for shitting on Dave's head for me >>>> while he stuck his neck out for you. >>> >>>I have no problem >> >> Sure you don't. > >Correct. Marvelous. >>>>>>> >> and that because no legal >>>>>>> >> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>> >> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>> >then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>> >have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear to be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent. >>>>>> Think about it. >>>>> >>>>>I saw it when you pointed it out. He's desperate. >>>> >>>> How did you miss it when I showed it to you by writing; >>> >>>I don't pay a whole lot of attention to your machinations. >> >> Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if >> in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and >> it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you >> were paying the right attention you would have noticed >> that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was >> yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what >> you missed but snipped away anyway, again. > >I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't >originate I've shown you repeatedly that it is your argument put into syllogistic form to show how it denies the antecedent. Here it is again, just for clarity. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >>>> "Both those statements, being without exception or >>>> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >>>> conclusions. >>>> >>>> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >>>> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >>>> therefore >>>> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >>>> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >>>> therefore >>>> 3) a moral right to x exists. >>>> >>>> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >>>> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >>>> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." >> >> Well dummy? Still not paying attention? Why did you try to >> distance yourself from your arguments by pretending they >> were mine after I demolished them? > >Because they are entirely your inventions No, they are your arguments which I've put into syllogistic form to show where they deny the antecedent to get your point accepted, not mine. >>>>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>>>us not to be abused. >>>> >>>> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >>>> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >>>> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >>>> be killed. How bizarre. >>> >>>It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >>>grasp it. >> >> Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a >> right against us not to be abused while being deprived >> of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right >> not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. > >That's true. Then explain how. How does a moral right to be free from a lesser harm trump the moral right to be free from a greater harm? Why DO YOU believe that it is morally wrong to beat an animal but morally acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions hurt the animal, thereby causing harm to it? "Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does." Dutch Mar 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ggxp8 As we can see, you've acknowledged that killing an animal hurts it, causing it harm, so explain why this greater harm carries *less* moral weight than a lesser harm. >Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but >never have a right to abuse. That doesn't explain how a moral right not to be abused trumps a moral right not to be killed. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:24:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: [..] >>>As I suspected you were >>>guilty of linguistic sloppiness, an error I often make myself, rather >>>than holding an unreasonable position wrt the holocaust. >> >> Really? You know nothing of Dutch's moral view regarding >> the treatment of holocaust Jews. >> >> [start- Rat and Swan to Dutch} >> > > The Nazis believed that the benefit to the group >> > > came before benefit to the individual (i.e., >> > > unselfishness is good within the group), but that >> > > humans (i.e. Aryans) should act selfishly for the >> > > benefit of their own group, and that this was based >> > > on biological instinct and history. All these things >> > > you have agreed with. Now -- why were their views >> > > wrong and yours right? >> [Dutch] >> > Most groups have this kind of idea. >> [Swan and Rat] >> Ipse dixit. Which groups? Why should we believe >> their opinion is correct? >> [Dutch] >> > It wasn't the Nazi's philosophy that was >> > so bad, it was the tactics they used. >> [Swan and Rat] >> So, if they'd killed off the Jews humanely, using >> the kind of methods you approve in the case of >> cattle, there'd be no problem in your moral system? >> >> You morally bankrupt dim-wit, it was _precisely_ the >> Nazis' philosophy which led to the Holocaust and >> everything else wrong that happened. It was their >> denial of inherent human rights, and the equal inherent >> moral worth of individuals, which was the source of >> the evil in the Nazi system. This kind of thinking is not >> acceptable to any truly decent person. I hope those >> on your side are appropriately appalled. >> [end] >> Swan and Rat Apr 23 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ecuqf >> >> As we can plainly see, according to Dutch, "It wasn't >> the Nazi's philosophy that was so bad, it was the tactics >> they used." > >Quite right. No, quite wrong. The Nazi philosophy IS bad, and so where the tactics they used while guided by it, you unethical Jew- hater. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:31:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if >>> in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and >>> it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you >>> were paying the right attention you would have noticed >>> that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was >>> yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what >>> you missed but snipped away anyway, again. >> >>I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't >>originate > > I've shown you repeatedly that it is your argument What you claim to "show" and what is reality have always been miles apart. This is no different. put > into syllogistic form to show how it denies the antecedent. > Here it is again, just for clarity. > > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > is a categorical statement you made, It's not a categorical statement if I follow it up with a clarification. It does not apply if the legal rights are installed by a gang of homicidal thugs. This is a reasonable clarification, one which you cannot reasonably reject. > and that proposition > forms the first premise; No, it forms the basis for a strawman, since it obviously misrepresents the genuine meaning of my statement. That invalidates the rest of what you are saying. Are my actual statements that difficult to deal with that you need to pummel strawmen like this? [..] >>>>>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>>>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>>>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>>>>us not to be abused. >>>>> >>>>> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >>>>> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >>>>> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >>>>> be killed. How bizarre. >>>> >>>>It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >>>>grasp it. >>> >>> Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a >>> right against us not to be abused while being deprived >>> of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right >>> not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. >> >>That's true. > > Then explain how. How does a moral right to be free > from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free > from a greater harm? The two harms are fundamentally different, not simply greater and lesser on the same scale. >Why DO YOU believe that is > it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally > acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions > hurt the animal, thereby causing harm to it? As I said above, the two acts are fundamentally different. Killing an animal simply ends it's life, abusing it causes it to suffer. > "Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does." > Dutch Mar 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ggxp8 > > As we can see, you've acknowledged that killing an > animal hurts it, causing it harm, so explain why this > greater harm carries more moral weight than a lesser > harm. The moral evaluation of an act includes the circumstances. If you kill another being for a justifiable reason such as to protect your crops, to obtain food in some way, or in self-defense, you are not committing an immoral act, even though you cause loss of life. "Abuse" by definition means to cause undue suffering. > >>Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but >>never have a right to abuse. > > That doesn't explain how a moral right not to be abused > trumps a moral right not to be killed. It ought to be clear from the example. It's not a game of whist, they are two completely separate evaluations. Even a serial killer is given a humane execution, it's never considered moral to abuse him first. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:16:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:53:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > squirmed pitifully >>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>> >>>>[..] >>>>> Dutch's argument >>>>> denies the antecedent, and because I put it into syllogistic >>>>> form to show him his error you stupidly believe that it is >>>>> MY argument instead. >>>> >>>>That fallacy does not appear anywhere in my statements >>> >>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>> >>> is a categorical statement you made, >>> and that proposition forms the first premise; >> >>Assuming that the law-making process is not hijacked by homicidal maniacs. > > That desperate attempt to insert a qualifier It's a reasonable clarification, I have to call Godwin here. Enough with the strawmen. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:22:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:52:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>> [..] >>>>>>>>> and that because no legal >>>>>>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. >>>>> >>>>> It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show >>>>> where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; >>>> >>>>Since it doesn't apply to my arguments >>> >>> They most certainly do >> >>No it doesn't > > Says you after snipping away the evidence which shows > it does apply. > > <restore> > They most certainly do, as I'll show. > > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > is a categorical statement Godwin |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >>Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather >>than study your clarifications. > > No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand > clarification when they make no sense. You reject clarifications when it suits you. Take his latest, > for example; > > "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to > be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. > It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against > us not to be abused." > Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d > > That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying > to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a > greater one, There is no "trumping" involved. > but when asked for it he refuses to give it, > opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds > the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say > that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face > value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you > arse-licking ******? Because that's what you're doing. > >> Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else. > > If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then > so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing. How the hell can you believe that pummeling strawmen scores you points?? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message news  > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>> The conclusion logically follows from the premises you >>> stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the >>> implications of it. >> >>I provided the clarification of my statement, that is all that should be >>required, if you were discussing the issue in good faith. > > Your statements are categorical and therefore need > no further clarification. The clarification is there, you cannot reasonably reject it. Your attempts to"clarify" them > are just a desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into > your original categorical statements so as to avoid the > logical implications of them, and that won't do. You are not in a position to reject my clarification. And > snipping the whole post away with those categorical > statements won't do, either, so let's put it back again > and see if you have the ability to address it. > > <re-re-restore> > >> <re-restore> > >> Dutch is of the opinion that; > >> > >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > > >Under normal circumstances > > No. EVERY legal right is not preceded by a moral right, > under any circumstances. That was my clarification, why can you make it, but not I? > >> and > >> > >> "Where legal rights exist moral rights always > >> precede them." > >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx > > > >Same as above, I should have avoided the word "always" > > You also used the categorical term "every" in your other > quote, and another categorical term "always" in the quote > above, so don't try wriggling from your categorical > statements by pretending you made one small error, liar > Ditch. I didn't say the error was small, I said it was in using the word "always". > >> but he's also of the opinion that; > >> > >> "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews > >> because they rewrote the laws" > >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx > > > >They did > > And while that legal right existed, according to your view > on moral rights a moral right to abuse Jews existed and > preceded that legal right, making the abuse of Jews morally > permissible because; > > "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." > Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx > > and > > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > >> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had > >> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before > >> their alleged legal right was put in place. > > > >Non-sequitur > > The conclusion logically follows from the premises you > stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the > implications of it. > <end re-restore> > <end re-re-restore> > > Snipping and running for the door is not a defence of > your position, You're the one who regularly disappears only to reappear months later as some ill-conceived sock-puppet, I am always here to try to set you straight. Hope you get it someday. > so I suggest you start defending it in > the proper way if you're able. You're pummeling a strawman and ignoring the real issue. There's nothing to defend. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > *correction* Oh, *you* are allowed to make corrections I see.. where are your rules of discussion, I must read them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:24:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > [..] >>>>As I suspected you were >>>>guilty of linguistic sloppiness, an error I often make myself, rather >>>>than holding an unreasonable position wrt the holocaust. >>> >>> Really? You know nothing of Dutch's moral view regarding >>> the treatment of holocaust Jews. >>> >>> [start- Rat and Swan to Dutch} >>> > > The Nazis believed that the benefit to the group >>> > > came before benefit to the individual (i.e., >>> > > unselfishness is good within the group), but that >>> > > humans (i.e. Aryans) should act selfishly for the >>> > > benefit of their own group, and that this was based >>> > > on biological instinct and history. All these things >>> > > you have agreed with. Now -- why were their views >>> > > wrong and yours right? >>> [Dutch] >>> > Most groups have this kind of idea. >>> [Swan and Rat] >>> Ipse dixit. Which groups? Why should we believe >>> their opinion is correct? >>> [Dutch] >>> > It wasn't the Nazi's philosophy that was >>> > so bad, it was the tactics they used. >>> [Swan and Rat] >>> So, if they'd killed off the Jews humanely, using >>> the kind of methods you approve in the case of >>> cattle, there'd be no problem in your moral system? >>> >>> You morally bankrupt dim-wit, it was _precisely_ the >>> Nazis' philosophy which led to the Holocaust and >>> everything else wrong that happened. It was their >>> denial of inherent human rights, and the equal inherent >>> moral worth of individuals, which was the source of >>> the evil in the Nazi system. This kind of thinking is not >>> acceptable to any truly decent person. I hope those >>> on your side are appropriately appalled. >>> [end] >>> Swan and Rat Apr 23 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ecuqf >>> >>> As we can plainly see, according to Dutch, "It wasn't >>> the Nazi's philosophy that was so bad, it was the tactics >>> they used." >> >>Quite right. > > No, quite wrong. The Nazi philosophy IS bad, I didn't say it was good, it wasn't, but it was fundamentally unremarkable. > and so where > the tactics they used while guided by it, It would not have mattered what the source of their venom, what was remarkable about the Nazis was how they took control of the German government and used it to carry out their plans. The world is full of people who harbour racist feelings, this is hardly a revelation. > you unethical Jew- hater. I figured this would be your new false accusation. This should be rich. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:05:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:31:42 -0700, >>"Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if >>>> in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and >>>> it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you >>>> were paying the right attention you would have noticed >>>> that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was >>>> yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what >>>> you missed but snipped away anyway, again. >>> >>>I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't >>>originate >> >> I've shown you repeatedly that it is your argument > >What you claim to "show" and what is reality have always been miles apart. So you say, and that's very easy without a following explanation for why you said it. I, on the other hand have shown conclusively that the argument you're using to get your point accepted is specious in that it denies the antecedent. >> put >> into syllogistic form to show how it denies the antecedent. >> Here it is again, just for clarity. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> is a categorical statement you made, > >It's not a categorical statement if I follow it up with a clarification. Your statements are categorical and therefore need no further clarification. Your attempts to"clarify" them are just a desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into your original categorical statements so as to avoid the logical implications of them, and that won't do >> and that proposition forms the first premise; > >No Yes, and snipping the evidence away doesn't make it disappear or help your defence. <restore> Here it is again, just for clarity. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. <end restore> >>>>>>>I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >>>>>>>be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >>>>>>>It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >>>>>>>us not to be abused. >>>>>> >>>>>> How can an animal hold a right against us not to be abused >>>>>> while being deprived of the right not to be killed? By your >>>>>> reckoning the right not to be abused trumps the right not to >>>>>> be killed. How bizarre. >>>>> >>>>>It's not bizarre at all, what's bizarre and troubling is that you can't >>>>>grasp it. >>>> >>>> Then explain it very slowly. How can an animal hold a >>>> right against us not to be abused while being deprived >>>> of the right not to be killed? By your reckoning the right >>>> not to be abused trumps the right not to be killed. >>> >>>That's true. >> >> Then explain how. How does a moral right to be free >> from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free >> from a greater harm? > >The two harms are fundamentally different, not simply greater and lesser on >the same scale. That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free from a greater one, you imbecile. Claiming they are fundamentally different doesn't make your case, either, so try something else. Let's face it, you haven't a clue on rights theory or you wouldn't be making such a huge mistake here. >>Why DO YOU believe that is >> it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally >> acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions >> hurt the animal, thereby causing harm to it? > >As I said above, the two acts are fundamentally different. Then explain how they're fundamentally different instead of just asserting it. Both actions cause harm, but according to your wrong understanding on rights theory the lesser harm in beating an animal trumps the greater harm in killing it. Explain why YOU believe that is it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions cause harm. Show that you understand at least the basics of rights theory and retract this stupid claim. >> "Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does." >> Dutch Mar 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ggxp8 >> >> As we can see, you've acknowledged that killing an >> animal hurts it, causing it harm, so explain why this >> greater harm carries more moral weight than a lesser >> harm. > >The moral evaluation of an act includes the circumstances. If you kill >another being for a justifiable reason such as to protect your crops, to >obtain food in some way, or in self-defense, you are not committing an >immoral act, even though you cause loss of life. That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free from a greater one. > "Abuse" by definition means to cause undue suffering. That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free from a greater one. >>>Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but >>>never have a right to abuse. >> >> That doesn't explain how a moral right not to be abused >> trumps a moral right not to be killed. > >It ought to be clear from the example. You didn't give any example to make your point clear. You've merely alleged that PeTA holds the same moral view on rights that you do to get your point accepted, and that's not an example of any kind. Trying to make the case that PeTA holds the same wrong view of rights as you do doesn't make your case, although I'm tickled to see you trying to use PeTAs alleged moral principles to explain your own. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:28:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>> >>>> The conclusion logically follows from the premises you >>>> stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the >>>> implications of it. >>> >>>I provided the clarification of my statement, that is all that should be >>>required, if you were discussing the issue in good faith. >> >> Your statements are categorical and therefore need >> no further clarification. > >The clarification is there, you cannot reasonably reject it. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement without any need for further clarification. How many times must you be told these simple rules before they sink in? >> Your attempts to"clarify" them >> are just a desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into >> your original categorical statements so as to avoid the >> logical implications of them, and that won't do. > >You are not in a position to reject my clarification. Yes, I am, because categorical statements don't require further clarification. They are without exception or qualification; absolute. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical >> And >> snipping the whole post away with those categorical >> statements won't do, either, so let's put it back again >> and see if you have the ability to address it. >> >> <re-re-restore> >> >> <re-restore> >> >> Dutch is of the opinion that; >> >> >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> > >> >Under normal circumstances >> >> No. EVERY legal right is not preceded by a moral right, >> under any circumstances. > >That was my clarification And it doesn't clarify anything, even if I were to accept it, because EVERY legal right is not preceded by a moral right under any circumstances. >> >> and >> >> >> >> "Where legal rights exist moral rights always >> >> precede them." >> >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx >> > >> >Same as above, I should have avoided the word "always" >> >> You also used the categorical term "every" in your other >> quote, and another categorical term "always" in the quote >> above, so don't try wriggling from your categorical >> statements by pretending you made one small error, liar >> Ditch. > >I didn't say the error was small, I said it was in using the word "always". You also used the categorical term "every" in your other quote, so don't try wriggling from your categorical statements by pretending you made one small error, liar Ditch. >> >> but he's also of the opinion that; >> >> >> >> "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews >> >> because they rewrote the laws" >> >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx >> > >> >They did >> >> And while that legal right existed, according to your view >> on moral rights a moral right to abuse Jews existed and >> preceded that legal right, making the abuse of Jews morally >> permissible because; >> >> "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." >> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx >> >> and >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> >> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had >> >> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before >> >> their alleged legal right was put in place. >> > >> >Non-sequitur >> >> The conclusion logically follows from the premises you >> stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the >> implications of it. >> <end re-restore> >> <end re-re-restore> >> >> Snipping and running for the door is not a defence of >> your position, > >You're the one who regularly disappears only to reappear months later My participation on these groups is irrelevant. You cannot snip whole posts away in a bid to escape what you wrote and the logical implications from it, so I suggest you stop it and start defending yourself in the proper way, if you can. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:10:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>> >>>Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather >>>than study your clarifications. >> >> No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand >> clarification when they make no sense. Take his latest, >> for example; >> >> "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >> be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >> It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >> us not to be abused." >> Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d >> >> That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying >> to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a >> greater one, > >There is no "trumping" involved. Of course there is. >> but when asked for it he refuses to give it, >> opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds >> the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say >> that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face >> value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you >> arse-licking ******? > >Because that's what you're doing. No, I'm patiently asking for clarification to support your claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a greater one. You need to explain why it's morally wrong to beat an animal but morally right to kill it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:07:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:16:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:53:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > squirmed pitifully >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[..] >>>>>> Dutch's argument >>>>>> denies the antecedent, and because I put it into syllogistic >>>>>> form to show him his error you stupidly believe that it is >>>>>> MY argument instead. >>>>> >>>>>That fallacy does not appear anywhere in my statements >>>> >>>> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >>>> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >>>> >>>> is a categorical statement you made, >>>> and that proposition forms the first premise; >>> >>>Assuming that the law-making process is not hijacked by homicidal maniacs. >> >> That desperate attempt to insert a qualifier into your >> original categorical statement does not show that >> the above premise is not yours and formed from your >> own categorical statement. >> >> <restore> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition >> forms the first premise; >> >> 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. >> >> Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist >> for animals, and that's your second premise; >> >> 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. >> >> As we can see by your own statements and your denial of >> the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from >> your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your >> point accepted. > >It's a reasonable clarification No, categorical statements require no further clarification because they are without exception or qualification; absolute. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/categorical You're trying to introduce an exception to your categorical statements because you can't accept the logical errors following them and their wrong conclusions, and I'm not allowing you to do that. You've got to play by the rules, sonny, and your categorical statements will remain as you wrote them. >I have to call Godwin here. Running and hiding behind a silly Usenet rule that I reject won't help your defence, so come on out and stand your ground, nebbish. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:07:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:22:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:52:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>> and that because no legal >>>>>>>>>> right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no >>>>>>>>>> moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Denying the antecedent. "If the Jews had a legal right >>>>>>>>>then a moral right would precede it. The Jews did not >>>>>>>>>have a legal right. Therefore they did not have a moral right." >>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I showed that earlier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He's pointing out a fallacy that YOU invoked, bozo. >>>>>> >>>>>> It YOUR argument that I put into syllogistic form to show >>>>>> where YOUR argument denies the antecedent, as in; >>>>> >>>>>Since it doesn't apply to my arguments >>>> >>>> They most certainly do >>> >>>No it doesn't >> >> Says you after snipping away the evidence which shows >> it does apply. >> >> <restore> >> They most certainly do, as I'll show. >> >> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." >> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju >> >> is a categorical statement > >Godwin You can't run and hide your incompetence behind a Usenet rule I reject, so come on out and stand your ground. <re-restore> Says you after snipping away the evidence which shows it does apply. "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju is a categorical statement you made, and that proposition forms the first premise; 1) If a legal right exists, then a moral right exists and precedes it. Legal rights didn't exist for holocaust Jews, and they don't exist for animals, and that's your second premise; 2) a legal right doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) therefore 3) a moral right doesn't exist and precede it. As we can see by your own statements and your denial of the existence of moral rights in the conclusion drawn from your premises, you are denying the antecedent to get your point accepted. >[..] No, snipping away a whole post and running for the door just isn't good enough, nebbish. Stand your ground and defend your beliefs, if you can. <restore> >he correctly attributed it to you. He wrongly thought it was my argument, but we've now established that it was my presentation of yours in syllogistic form to show you the fallacy you were trying to invoke. >> "Both those statements, being without exception or >> qualification; absolute, are false and lead to wrong >> conclusions. >> >> 1) If a legal right to x exists, then a moral right to x precedes it. >> 2) A legal right to x doesn't exist (denying the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x doesn't precede. >> >> or >> >> 1) If a moral right to x exists, then a legal right to x exists. >> 2) A legal right to x exists (affirming the consequent) >> therefore >> 3) a moral right to x exists. >> >> To get your point accepted you're denying the antecedent and >> affirming the consequent, whichever way you look at it, and it's >> on that basis that your argument must be rejected outright." >> >> And now, to wriggle away from your stupidity and embarrassment >> you're trying to make the claim that they're my arguments rather >> than yours. > >That's it Oh yes, I already knew that. >>>>>> This wrong kind of thinking also leads you to believe >>>>>> that you ONLY hold a right against physical abuse 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> You no doubt believe the same was true for holocaust >>>>>> Jews as for yourself. You >>>>>> >>>>>> "measure [a holocaust Jew's] right to be free from >>>>>> physical assault by looking to see if laws and >>>>>> sanctions exist against anyone who would assault >>>>>> [them]. >>>>> >>>>>It is clear from the context that Dutch is talking about >>>>>legal rights. >>>> >>>> No, he talks of his moral right to be free from physical >>>> assault by looking to see if legal rights exist to prevent >>>> those who would assault him, and he no doubt uses that >>>> same rule to decide holocaust Jews held no moral rights >>>> against the Nazis who abused them with impunity. >>> >>>Nope >> >> I've shown that I'm right. > >To yourself, nobody else. I 'm happy with that. >>>>>It is also clear that what he says is correct. >>>> >>>> No, he has the right to be free from our physical assault >>>> whether legal rights against us exist or not. >>> >>>You're addressing your own strawmen Derek. >> >> What I wrote above is a true statement: you do have >> the right to be free from our physical assault whether >> legal rights exist to protect that right or not. You, on >> the other hand measure your right to be free from >> physical assault by looking to see if legal rights exist, >> and from there decide that you hold a right to be free >> from our physical abuse. You have it all backward! > >You did it again Did what, you useless, lazy imbecile? >>>>>> It's this wrong kind of thinking leads you to sporadically >>>>>> declare animals hold no rights. You believe that, because >>>>>> no laws exist to protect them from being butchered by >>>>>> us, then they hold no moral right against us, as in. >>>>>> >>>>>> "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 >>>>>> >>>>>> To paraphrase that stupidity; >>>>>> >>>>>> "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." >>>>>> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s >>>>> >>>>>I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human" >>>>>makes no difference to the logic here. >>>> >>>> Exactly, >>> >>>Exactly wrong >> >> Exactly right, dummy. > >Nope Then explain why instead of just sitting there like a lump of shit, you lazy *******. >>>> and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. He >>>> believes that if animals or humans are routinely killed >>>> without any consequence to the killer, those animals >>>> and humans have no moral right not be killed. >>> >>>Rights can only exist where it is plausible for them to exist. >> >> False. Moral rights exist universally, not where you >> or any particular society deem plausible. > >Show where or how they "exist universally". Give some credibility to your ipse dixit. I don't need to look at legal documents before deciding whether people hold rights, but because you do I've brought something here you should've looked up yourself. [Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.] http://tinyurl.com/gcodx >>>It is not >>>plausible for example for rights to exist to protect dust mites, the >>>microscopic animalia that live on surfaces, in the air, in your hair, your >>>bed, on your skin. Humans simply cannot do anything about killing them >>>routinely. >> >> Like I wrote earlier, you believe that just because rights >> can be and are violated routinely with impunity, those >> victims cannot be said to be rights-holders, and this >> follows closely with your other comments; >> >> "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 >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity and show how wrong >> your views are; >> >> "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." > >You just did it again. Did what again, dodger? Do you really think you can run away like this and still believe you've made your case? <end re-restore> You need to address this post instead of snipping it away every time. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:35:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:24:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> [..] >>>>>As I suspected you were >>>>>guilty of linguistic sloppiness, an error I often make myself, rather >>>>>than holding an unreasonable position wrt the holocaust. >>>> >>>> Really? You know nothing of Dutch's moral view regarding >>>> the treatment of holocaust Jews. >>>> >>>> [start- Rat and Swan to Dutch} >>>> > > The Nazis believed that the benefit to the group >>>> > > came before benefit to the individual (i.e., >>>> > > unselfishness is good within the group), but that >>>> > > humans (i.e. Aryans) should act selfishly for the >>>> > > benefit of their own group, and that this was based >>>> > > on biological instinct and history. All these things >>>> > > you have agreed with. Now -- why were their views >>>> > > wrong and yours right? >>>> [Dutch] >>>> > Most groups have this kind of idea. >>>> [Swan and Rat] >>>> Ipse dixit. Which groups? Why should we believe >>>> their opinion is correct? >>>> [Dutch] >>>> > It wasn't the Nazi's philosophy that was >>>> > so bad, it was the tactics they used. >>>> [Swan and Rat] >>>> So, if they'd killed off the Jews humanely, using >>>> the kind of methods you approve in the case of >>>> cattle, there'd be no problem in your moral system? >>>> >>>> You morally bankrupt dim-wit, it was _precisely_ the >>>> Nazis' philosophy which led to the Holocaust and >>>> everything else wrong that happened. It was their >>>> denial of inherent human rights, and the equal inherent >>>> moral worth of individuals, which was the source of >>>> the evil in the Nazi system. This kind of thinking is not >>>> acceptable to any truly decent person. I hope those >>>> on your side are appropriately appalled. >>>> [end] >>>> Swan and Rat Apr 23 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ecuqf >>>> >>>> As we can plainly see, according to Dutch, "It wasn't >>>> the Nazi's philosophy that was so bad, it was the tactics >>>> they used." >>> >>>Quite right. >> >> No, quite wrong. The Nazi philosophy IS bad, > >I didn't say it was good You've declared your belief that the Nazi philosophy was NOT bad, and that only their tactics behind that philosophy was bad. No amount of spin on your part can distance you from that remark. You also believe, "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews because they rewrote the laws" Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx and "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju Go figure. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derek wrote: > On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > >Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather > >than study your clarifications. > > No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand > clarification when they make no sense. I have absolutely no problem with that. In this instance he clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman. > Take his latest, for example; > > "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to > be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. > It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against > us not to be abused." > Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d > > That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying > to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a > greater one, Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal than abuse. Perhaps both. > but when asked for it he refuses to give it, > opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds > the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say > that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face > value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you > arse-licking ******? Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif? > > > Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else. > > If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then > so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:05:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 >>01:31:42 -0700, >>>"Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>> Then you have no valid reason to make any comment if >>>>> in fact you don't pay any attention to what I write, and >>>>> it's no wonder why you get so many things wrong. If you >>>>> were paying the right attention you would have noticed >>>>> that the argument I put forward in syllogistic form was >>>>> yours, not mine. Look below this line and read what >>>>> you missed but snipped away anyway, again. >>>> >>>>I did read that, it's incorrect, in invokes a fallacy that I didn't >>>>originate >>> >>> I've shown you repeatedly that it is your argument >> >>What you claim to "show" and what is reality have always been miles apart. > > So you say It's a fact, this strawman you keep pummeling is a good example. Now you claim to have shown that I hate jews and am a Nazi sympathizer. It goes on and on.. > I, on the other hand > have You have pummeled a strawman. >>> is a categorical statement you made, >> >>It's not a categorical statement if I follow it up with a clarification. > > Your statements are categorical and therefore need > no further clarification. It's my statement, and it needed clarification because you deliberately misconstrued it. That's the end of this discussion, I have allowed you to waste enough of my time with it. Carry on like an idiot, I won't reply on it again. >>> Then explain how. How does a moral right to be free >>> from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free >>> from a greater harm? >> >>The two harms are fundamentally different, not simply greater and lesser >>on >>the same scale. > > That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free > from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free > from a greater one, you imbecile. We're not playing whist bozo, there's no "trumping" and the two issues are separate. > Claiming they are > fundamentally different doesn't make your case, either, It dispels the nonsensical notion that one is greater than the other on some imaginary binary scale, that is a fantasy. > so try something else. Let's face it, you haven't a clue > on rights theory or you wouldn't be making such a huge > mistake here. This is deja-vue, every time you come out with one of these bonehead ideas you accuse me of not having a clue. >>>Why DO YOU believe that is >>> it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally >>> acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions >>> hurt the animal, thereby causing harm to it? >> >>As I said above, the two acts are fundamentally different. > > Then explain how they're fundamentally different > instead of just asserting it. Killing is something we do under many, many circumstances as a part of life. There is literally no action that doesn't kill, the more complex or elaborate the more killing that happens. It's an intrinsic part of life. > Both actions cause harm, > but according to your wrong understanding on rights > theory the lesser harm in beating an animal trumps > the greater harm in killing it. Explain why YOU believe > that is it morally wrong to beat an animal but morally > acceptable to kill it when you know that both actions > cause harm. Show that you understand at least the > basics of rights theory and retract this stupid claim. It's dead obvious you idiot. Even in war, killing is normal, even by bombing, but torture is against the rules. In food production we kill to protect our crops, we don't torture animals. >>> "Eating them doesn't hurt them, killing them does." >>> Dutch Mar 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ggxp8 >>> >>> As we can see, you've acknowledged that killing an >>> animal hurts it, causing it harm, so explain why this >>> greater harm carries more moral weight than a lesser >>> harm. >> >>The moral evaluation of an act includes the circumstances. If you kill >>another being for a justifiable reason such as to protect your crops, to >>obtain food in some way, or in self-defense, you are not committing an >>immoral act, even though you cause loss of life. > > That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free > from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free > from a greater one. I told you, there is no "trumping", moral ideas are not a game of cards. Killing with justification and abuse are not comparable, they are intrinsically different acts. Killing *can* be unjustified, it often is, in that case it may be an extreme result of abuse, but killing is not necessarily a form of abuse. >> "Abuse" by definition means to cause undue suffering. > > That still doesn't explain how a moral right to be free > from a lesser harm trumps the moral right to be free > from a greater one. See above. > >>>>Animal societies like PeTA maintain a right to "euthanize" but >>>>never have a right to abuse. >>> >>> That doesn't explain how a moral right not to be abused >>> trumps a moral right not to be killed. >> >>It ought to be clear from the example. > > You didn't give any example to make your point clear. Yes I did. Here's another, if you are attacked you are justified in killing your attacker in self-defence, you are not justified in torturing him. Another, you are playing a sport and you put a legal hit on another player killing him. That's not a form of abuse. > You've merely alleged that PeTA holds the same moral > view on rights that you do to get your point accepted, > and that's not an example of any kind. Trying to make > the case that PeTA holds the same wrong view of rights > as you do doesn't make your case, although I'm tickled > to see you trying to use PeTAs alleged moral principles > to explain your own. These ideas are much more widely held that that. The state is justified in killing murderers, but not justified in torturing them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:28:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message >>news >>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> >>>>> The conclusion logically follows from the premises you >>>>> stated. You can't escape what you wrote and deny the >>>>> implications of it. >>>> >>>>I provided the clarification of my statement, that is all that should be >>>>required, if you were discussing the issue in good faith. >>> >>> Your statements are categorical and therefore need >>> no further clarification. >> >>The clarification is there, you cannot reasonably reject it. > > "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." > Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju > > is a categorical statement without any need for further > clarification. How many times must you be told these > simple rules before they sink in? ROTFL!!! Your stupidity is exceeed only by your arrogance. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote same old shite. Shut up, you're an idiot. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote same old shite.
Shut up, you're an idiot. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote same old shite.
Shut up, you're an idiot. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote > > Derek wrote: >> On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> > >> >Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather >> >than study your clarifications. >> >> No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand >> clarification when they make no sense. > > I have absolutely no problem with that. Except he is telling a bald-faced lie, in this case he took my original statement at face value, concluded that it made no sense, then not only didn't ask for a clarification, he then refused to accept a clarification when it was offered, because it undermined the case he had built up against me using the original imperfect statement. > In this instance he > clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge > as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but > instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack > the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman. > >> Take his latest, for example; >> >> "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to >> be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible. >> It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against >> us not to be abused." >> Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d >> >> That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying >> to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a >> greater one, > > Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic > to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not > against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes > that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal > than abuse. Perhaps both. Read what I wrote again, particularly the word "plausible", morals have to be plausible. For example we can't say that it's is immoral to kill plants, that's not plausible. We could decide that it is immoral to kill white roses, that *is* plausible, but why should we do that? It makes more sense to allow people to kill their own white roses if they want to. By the same reasoning it's not plausible to say it's immoral to kill animals. Animal life is as ubiquitous as plant life, probably more so. So we can say it's immoral to kill, say pigs, but why should we? The only context in which killing an animal is comparable to abusing it is when it is killed in the course of or as a form of abuse, in that case it is a severe outcome of abuse. If an animal is killed in a justifiable way, then it has no relation to abuse. Killing and abuse (i.e. torture) are two completely different things. Torture is virtually always considered wrong in every circumstance. Killing is not, killing is part of living, it's a harsh reality of life. > >> but when asked for it he refuses to give it, >> opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds >> the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say >> that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face >> value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you >> arse-licking ******? > > Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif? He sure does. He turns into an obseqiuous little toady when addressing Leif, despite the fact that their views are 180 degrees apart. >> > Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else. >> >> If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then >> so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing. > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Roger Cohen on French food in the NYT | General Cooking | |||
| Shopping a al Leonard Cohen | General Cooking | |||
| Joyce Zac & Allissa Cohen | Vegan | |||
| Alissa Cohen | Vegan | |||
| Ping: Louis Cohen | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
