|
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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. <restore> Dutch is of the opinion that; "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right." Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx So far so good, arguably, 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 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. <end restore> How many different news servers and agents are you trying to use to conceal your identity this time, usual suspect.'? You're so stupid that you forgot to change your email address when first arriving here as 'chico chupacabra', and you've even managed to get Jon to lie on your behalf to Pearl to protect you in other threads to this. Here's the evidence (below). From: chico chupacabra > Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian Subject: I'm considering being a vegetarian... Message-Id: > References: .com> > > > > . net> > t> > > > > > > > X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.9.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 13 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:36:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.113.18.80 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: tornado.texas.rr.com 1150032996 70.113.18.80 (Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:36:36 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:36:36 CDT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com and From: usual suspect > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan Subject: An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2005 References: .com> > > > > In-Reply-To: > Lines: 20 Message-ID: > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:57:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.28.78.81 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: tornado.texas.rr.com 1132531057 24.28.78.81 (Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:57:37 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:57:37 CST Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Type both NNTP-Posting-Hosts into a reverse IP engine at http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp and we get; 24.28.78.81 US UNITED STATES TEXAS AUSTIN ROAD RUNNER HOLDCO LLC and 70.113.18.80 US UNITED STATES TEXAS AUSTIN ROAD RUNNER HOLDCO LLC Why are you trying to conceal your identity and getting others such as Jonathan to lie on your behalf? Could it be because I saw to it that your older identity as 'usual suspect' had no argument against the vegan here? Yep, I reckon so. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. [..] > Why are you trying to conceal your identity and getting others > such as Jonathan to lie on your behalf? Could it be because > I saw to it that your older identity as 'usual suspect' had no > argument against the vegan here? Yep, I reckon so. He freely admitted he was aka usual suspect several times in the past couple of days. You are out of touch, and making the mistake of thinking that everyone is as much a weasel and a sneak as you are, "Seb". |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
daft-as-ever Dreck whined:
> usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: I'm not posing, arsehole. I stated to someone else to find pics of real farm conditions in one of my old posts. Yes, AS USUAL SUSPECT. >>the cuckold of Eastbourne 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 is a non sequitur, and you're stirring shit as usual. <...> > How many different news servers One. I've never used a news server other than my ISP's. That puts me about 12 behind your count, but I'll let you win the nymshift game, fatso. > and agents I've used four since posting to these groups: Mozilla (Thunderbird, the e-mail/news client in Mozilla Suite, and Netscape), KNode, Pan, and Sylpheed. The latter three have only been since I switched to Linux on my home computers. > are you trying to use to conceal your identity No, and I never have. Again, I'll let you the nymshifting game: Derek, firstoftwins, Immortalist, ipse dixit, et al. > You forgot to change your email address If you had half a brain-cell left over following your abuse of painkillers, X at raves, and pot, Dreck, you might've figured out that I manually entered that specific e-mail address when I configured Sylpheed last week (or the week before) for newsgroups as well as e-mail. But you don't, so you haven't. No surprise there. Unlike you, I wasn't trying to hide my identity, pretending to lend/borrow news accounts (e.g., when you offered to loan yourself your own account when you pretended to be "ipse dixit"), or any of the other games you play to conceal your identity -- especially following your broken promises to quit usenet. My desire to NOT conceal my identity is further borne out by my reposting Lesley's list EARLY and OFTEN. > you've even managed to get Jon to > lie on your behalf to Pearl Nobody's lied on my behalf. If Mr Erikson wishes to have fun and try his hand at confusing gullible people like you and ****wit and Lesley (like shooting fish is barrels), that's his business. Ironically, what he did was similar to what YOU've done with all your sock puppets over the years, you loathsome fat ****, when you've suggested others cannot prove it's really you hiding behind your latest nymshift. > to protect you I don't need protection, and POT-KETTLE-BLACK. You're the one who's shifted nyms, news servers, etc. All I did was make one name change. Two if you count Fu-Ming Wang. And fwiw, I also set up properties for "usual suspect" in Sylpheed on my other computer. > Why are you trying to conceal your identity I'm not concealing my identity, ipsedixitfirstoftwinsimmortalistetal. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derek ****ing LIED as usual:
> usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: Over the last few years, I've linked to photographs of hog and poultry farms which represent the norm in modern agriculture. Most, if not all, of the ARAs in these two groups lacked the courage to look at them because it would upset their worldview which was formed on the propaganda of AR extremist groups. You can look for the pics yourself. My nym is "usual suspect." chico chupacabra, AKA usual suspect, 10 June 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jvnbd Try again with another of your ****ing lies, you ****ing lying liar. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:40:17 -0700, "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 It does follow, and snipping the evidence supporting my claim away every time only shows that you know it. <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 and "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx So far so good, arguably, 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 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. <end re-restore> >> Why are you trying to conceal your identity and getting others >> such as Jonathan to lie on your behalf? Could it be because >> I saw to it that your older identity as 'usual suspect' had no >> argument against the vegan here? Yep, I reckon so. > >He freely admitted he was aka usual suspect several times in the past couple >of days. Then why didn't he correct Jon in this exchange (below) between him and Pearl, before Jon made a fool of himself? [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. [end] I knew who he was, and so did everyone else who knows his pathetic style of attack and meat-pushing onto the vegans he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather. Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh at Jon's expense. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derekimmortalistipsedixitfirstoftwistandeveryother nymthefat****haseverused
wrote: <...> > Jon in this exchange (below) > between him and the whore Lesley > > [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 Mr Erikson did the very thing you've repeatedly done when you've changed nyms (and servers), when you've carried on with your sock puppets, etc., when you demanded proof that you were Derek Nash and not ipse dixit, immortalist, and so on and on and on and on, first of twits. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:51:29 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: > >I'm not posing, arsehole. I stated to someone else to find pics of real farm >conditions in one of my old posts. Yes, AS USUAL SUSPECT. So, you slipped up there as well, did you? If you weren't trying to hide your identity, why have you been using up to three different news agents and different servers, and why didn't you correct Jon during his exchange with Pearl about you before Pearl got to get the last laugh on him? [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. [end] >>><...> >>>> 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 > >is a non sequitur, So says you after removing the evidence supporting my claim, yet again, and without giving any explanation for why you claim that my argument is a non sequitur. That's just not good enough; you'll have to do better than that. >> you've even managed to get Jon to >> lie on your behalf to Pearl > >Nobody's lied on my behalf. If Mr Erikson wishes to have fun Pearl obviously got the last laugh in this exchange. [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. [end] Pearl was the one having all the fun there, thanks to you. Well done. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derekfirstoftwitsimmortalistipsedixitandallkindsof othernyms wrote:
> So, you slipped up No, I wasn't even hiding. Shit-stirring dummy. > Why have you been using up > to three different news agents Just trying to find one I like. > and different servers I haven't changed servers. I use my ISP's main news server, and always have. > why didn't you correct Mr Erikson during his exchange with the whore > Lesley Why would he need correction? He only asked her to prove her claim -- something she's not very adept at, but it can be fun to watch her wriggle through her incompetent posts, corrections, clarifications, and so on (e.g., like when she tried her hand at computing feed:weight in beef cattle). |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derek can't stop stirring shit:
>>> So, you slipped up >> >>No, I wasn't even hiding. Shit-stirring dummy. > > You were using at least three different news agents, How many have I used as chico chupacabra, a nym I've used only the last couple weeks or so? Two: K-node (on this computer) and Sylpheed (on another computer I've used for usenet). I don't have *any* K installed on the other computer I've used for usenet; I don't have Sylpheed installed on this one. I'm running different distributions on three different computers; not every distro comes with every bloody ****ing program already on it, and I just installed Linux on *this* computer Friday afternoon so it only has the programs from that distro on it (well, except for a couple games I installed earlier this morning). > three different email accounts, So? I've changed those frequently even when posting as usual suspect: , ps, etc. BFD. > two news servers with different NNTP's No apostrophe needed (NNTPs). I'm connecting to the same main news server I always have. How my ISP routes me through their servers is their doing, not mine. If I were inclined to conceal my identity, don't you think I'd go through some other server like YOU do, fat ****? > , both of which still revealed who you were *I* revealed who I am, you bone-idle ****. I did it intentionally with " and again when posting to some nitwit who thinks every ****ing animal in the world is horribly abused when I told him specifically to look for MY posts under "usual suspect." > Your NNTP number has changed So has my IP, probably 100 times in the last couple weeks, without any action on my part. That's business. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
<..> > I knew who he was, and so did everyone else who knows > his pathetic style of attack and meat-pushing onto the vegans > he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his > bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather. > Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh > at Jon's expense. Sure did. They're both excellent representatives for the anti faction. Add rick and ditch into the mix... wicked! |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:28:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... ><..> > >> I knew who he was, and so did everyone else who knows >> his pathetic style of attack and meat-pushing onto the vegans >> he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his >> bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather. >> Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh >> at Jon's expense. > >Sure did. They're both excellent representatives for the >anti faction. Add rick and ditch into the mix... wicked! Good entertainment, too. You can't say they aren't. ;-) |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.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, but as I have said previously, when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights always precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution and development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal Nazi Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I mean. I used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, because it gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other hand it's funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to accept my explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a legitimate moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little silly. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > Good entertainment, too. You can't say they aren't. ;-) Delusions will take you a long way. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:40:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote: He's not posing, "poseur", that's your specialty. >>>>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 > > It does follow, No it doesn't, it's taking the comments out of context. I'll respond once again since you seem to have Dave sucked in this time. > and snipping the evidence supporting my > claim away every time only shows that you know it. Non-sequitur, snipping your crap shows my disdain for it. > <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, that does not apply to legal rights obtain illegitmately, such as by gangs of thugs who take over a legislature by force and intimidation. > 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" considering dishonest sophists like you abound here. > So far so good, arguably, Weasel word, it's either good or it's not. 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, but they obtained that legal right illegitimately by intimidation and murder, not through the process of consensus and evolution. > 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, and absurd. I hope this has helped to clear up your confusion. And you will understand when I don't humour you further by replying to this same silly accusation. > <end re-restore> > >>> Why are you trying to conceal your identity and getting others >>> such as Jonathan to lie on your behalf? Could it be because >>> I saw to it that your older identity as 'usual suspect' had no >>> argument against the vegan here? Yep, I reckon so. >> >>He freely admitted he was aka usual suspect several times in the past >>couple >>of days. > > 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. > [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. [end] > > I knew who he was, He admitted who he was, moron, unlike your sock-puppets. > and so did everyone else who knows > his pathetic style of attack I recognize yours too, that's why your *sleazy* attempts to pass off sock-puppets always fail. and meat-pushing onto the vegans > he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his > bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather. > Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh > at Jon's expense. Have you learned yet to stop trying to pass off sock-puppets? |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:48:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:40:17 -0700, "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 >> >> It does follow, > >No it doesn't It does follow, as shown by me many times now. >> and snipping the evidence supporting my >> claim away every time only shows that you know it. > >Non-sequitur, snipping your crap shows my disdain for it. Rather, it shows that you cannot defend yourself against it, so you snip it all away instead. >> <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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Dave" > wrote in message ups.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, and that because no legal right against Nazi abuse existed for Jews, then no moral right against Nazi abuse existed to precede it. 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'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 |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derek wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Dave" > wrote in message ups.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." > 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 > 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. It is also clear that what he says is correct. > 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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message ups.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, but as I have said previously, >> when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights always >> precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution and >> development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal Nazi >> Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I mean. I >> used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, because it >> gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other hand it's >> funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to accept my >> explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a legitimate >> moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little silly. > >I can accept your explaination there, Dutch. 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." |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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 ups.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. >> 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. >> 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. >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. >> 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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote> > Dutch wrote: > I can accept your explaination there, Dutch. As I suspected you were > guilty of linguistic sloppiness, an error I often make myself, I don't really consider speaking informally and expecting readers to take your meaning in good faith to be linguistic sloppiness. It's more a case of sophistry on the part of Derek. If there's real linguistic sloppiness here it's being committed by the pro-AR camp, who regularly use a whole litany of humpty-dumpty language. > rather than > holding an unreasonable position wrt the holocaust. I don't think he is suggesting that I hold that view about the holocaust, he is trying to show that my understanding of the basis of rights is inconsistent. That's fair enough, but unfortunately for him, that can't be done by deliberately misconstruing my statements nor by refusing to accept my clarification. Once he does that, he is clearly addressing a strawman. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. Any further insistence that it meant what you want it to mean rather than what I am telling you is pummeling a strawman. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:58:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>Dave, strictly speaking, you are correct > > Exactly. You believe <snip> Telling me what I believe then arguing against it is a strawman fallacy. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Derek wrote: > On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Dutch wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message ups.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, but as I have said previously, > >> when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights always > >> precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution and > >> development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal Nazi > >> Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I mean. I > >> used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, because it > >> gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other hand it's > >> funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to accept my > >> explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a legitimate > >> moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little silly. > > > >I can accept your explaination there, Dutch. 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. I respect Dutch enough to assume that he wouldn't hold the abhorent and irrational position that the Nazi treatment of the Jews was morally acceptable. > > [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." The tactics including the way they treated to Jews. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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." I didn't retract "that" position per se, those are not my words. Derek re-worded it in order to make it semantically more closed and difficult to clarify, to deceive and to manipulate my position into one he could attack more readily.. >> 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 Good point. Even though I have said that legal rights are preceded by moral rights (meaning legitimately) that does not mean that absence of a legal right implies absence of a moral right. You got caught in your own rhetoric Derek. > >> 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. It is also clear that what he says is correct. Derek's equivocations are frequently very transparent. >> 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. That's another example of the same fallacy Derek. Just because they hold no right against being used for food, in my view, I still believe they hold a right against gratuitous abuse. >> >> "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 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. We don't continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans. 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. <----end-----> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet" status that vegans like to pretend to is a sham. Animals are killed in large numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy in that light is an outright lie. It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>Dutch wrote: >>> "Dave" > wrote in message >>> ups.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, but as I have said previously, >>> when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights always >>> precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution and >>> development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal Nazi >>> Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I >>> mean. I >>> used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, because >>> it >>> gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other hand >>> it's >>> funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to >>> accept my >>> explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a legitimate >>> moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little >>> silly. >> >>I can accept your explaination there, Dutch. 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. Your strawmen keep getting more and more elaborate Derek. Now you know more about my views than I do. > [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. If the Nazis had simply been run of the mill hate-mongers they would have disappeared unnoticed into history along with billions of others with similar ideas. What set the Nazis of 1930's Germany apart was the way they systematically used fear and coercion to take over a legislature, then a country, then a continent, how they implemented their philosophy by rounding up their targets and gassing them, then attempted to take over the world. Their philosophy per se was quite unremarkable, the world is still full of such people today. Now save this post and file it away old chop, I'm sure you can edit it so it says something quite different that what I intend. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. >>> 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. >>> 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, you have led yourself down the garden path. >>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. >>> 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, re-inserting the part of the paragraph you craftily edited out makes that clear. > and that's where Dutch's confusion lies. Your confusion, not mine. > 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. 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. This same principle extends to many more animals when you consider not just living and breathing, but building roads, homes, schools, hospitals, to logging, food production, producing hydro power, all of it costs many animal lives. So yes the killing of all the animals I mentioned is by definition not a moral issue. Such an idea is irrational and untenable. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Derek wrote: >> On 17 Jun 2006 14:31:06 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >Dutch wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> ups.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, but as I have said >> >> previously, >> >> when I made the statement "Where legal rights exist moral rights >> >> always >> >> precede them." I was thinking about the normal process of evolution >> >> and >> >> development of legal rights, not about something like the criminal >> >> Nazi >> >> Regime [Godwin]. Think about it in those terms and you'll see what I >> >> mean. I >> >> used the absolute term "always" and I probably should not have, >> >> because it >> >> gave the sophists like Derek something to latch onto. On the other >> >> hand it's >> >> funny to watch him freak out about it. You can choose to refuse to >> >> accept my >> >> explanation and conclude that I believe that the Nazis had a >> >> legitimate >> >> moral right to do what they did if you like, but I find that a little >> >> silly. >> > >> >I can accept your explaination there, Dutch. 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. > > I respect Dutch enough to assume that he wouldn't hold the > abhorent and irrational position that the Nazi treatment of the > Jews was morally acceptable. Of course not. I wonder if Derek even remembers now that he's not trying to show that I support the Nazis.. Derek, you are trying to demonstrate that my ideas on the origins of rights are mistaken, not that I support the Nazis. At least that's what I have always assumed you were trying to do.. >> [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." > > The tactics including the way they treated to Jews. Exactly. The way they organized, used intimidation and violence to gain control of Germany, to change the laws and then to put into effect the ideas they espoused was what set them apart. Their philosophy was garden-variety race-based hate. I don't support such sentiments in any way but they are common to every culture. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > 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 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. > > 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. 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. It's just that they were crazed thugs, not fairly elected responsible members of a legitimate government, so instead of extending and arbitrating rights to their people as good governments do, they did the opposite. > >> >> 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. >> >> 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, > > I doubt that. What I am saying is that the laws against assault were preceded by people formulating the idea that we *should not* go around assaulting one another. The laws against assault, as well as the idea of a right not to be assaulted flowed out of that formulation. >> 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. Of course not, legal rights are being realized all the time, and they all existed as moral rights, therefore it stands to reason that many moral rights exist now that have yet to become legal rights. >> >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. Correct again, Derek is playing a shell game with definitions. Derek has a very low opinion of other people's intelligence. > >> >> 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. He believes animals have no moral > right to not be killed by us but not just because they lack > the legal right. 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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:28:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > ><..> > > > >> I knew who he was, and so did everyone else who knows > >> his pathetic style of attack and meat-pushing onto the vegans > >> he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his > >> bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather. > >> Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh > >> at Jon's expense. > > > >Sure did. They're both excellent representatives for the > >anti faction. Add rick and ditch into the mix... wicked! > > Good entertainment, too. You can't say they aren't. ;-) I daren't say they are.. rickwallah'd be all over it like a rash. ;) |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. .... > > [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! High Five, D! |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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. >> > [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. >High Five, D! High 5, P! |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "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 in message ups.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. > >Apparantly he is using an extremely loose definition of "always". Then his categorical statements must be rejected on that basis because he cannot use categorical terms like "always" and "every" loosely and hope to get his point accepted. Those categorical terms are without qualification or exception: absolute. >His response to my post makes clear that he didn't mean his >words to be interpreted literally. Yes, he did, you stupid imbecile, and his reply to you shows this when he wrote, "You may take it literally if you like." He hasn't retracted his position OR his categorical statements which support that position. >> >> 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. It's HIS argument, you stupid idiot, and I've put it into a syllogistic form to show that HE is denying the antecedent to get his point excepted, not me, dummy. I earlier wrote; "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." Keep track of who writes what in the exchanges here, and you might not make the same mistake again, but I doubt it. >Think about it. You think about it, you stupid imbecile. 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. >> >> 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, > >I doubt that. 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. 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. >> 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" >> >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. 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! "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. >> >> 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, 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..." |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
Dutch wrote: > > > > 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. 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. [snip] |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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. 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. >>> >> 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; "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." >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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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". > 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. > 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. > <----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. > 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. > It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it > must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
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 ups.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. >>>> 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; "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. >>>> 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. >>>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! >>>> 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. >> 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. >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." |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"Derek" > squirmed pitifully
> On 17 Jun 2006 17:31:33 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: [..] > You think about it, you stupid imbecile. Now, now, calm down fatso. Just because he caught you stumbling over your own rhetoric does not mean you have to resort to verbal abuse. 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, therefore Dave is justified in assuming it's your argument. [..] > 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, but laws and legal rights are not one and the same. That's a very clumsy equivocation fatso. I may use language in an informal and even incorrect way sometimes, but you equivocate deliberately and dishonestly. You're not a very ethical person. > 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. >>> 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." Already clarified, "In a legitimate social context". It does not apply when a gang of thugs takes over a legislature. Get that through your head you Godwin invoking ditz. > 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. >>> >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. > > 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 fatso, it's not what I believe. There can be moral rights with no legal right existing to protect them. > "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, 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, 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 fatso.. temper temper. Dave has not been rude to you. 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, it makes a big difference, as does including the entire quote rather than selectively editing out part of it. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. |
Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen
"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. I clarified my position, it's there for you now. > You > gave the impression that you did, but then decided > not to. Poor Derek, this is all too complicated for you isn't it? Thanks for shitting on Dave's head for me > while he stuck his neck out for you. I have no problem with Dave, he and I are having a sane, civilized and productive conversation, something foreign to the likes of you. >>>> >> 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. > > "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." > >>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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter