"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously
>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep
>>
>> Why do you want to then?
>
> The question is

The question is, do you understand what an equivocation is and do you
realize that your whole position is based on them?

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:40:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3v0jg2tub5uuaas0ng0939q1lagrk186jn@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously
>>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yep
>>>
>>> Why do you want to then?
>>
>> The question is
>
>The question is

It's not a question any more Dinky. You obviously have no clue why you want
to claim that you do something that so obviously should make you ashamed if you
do it. Most people would find that position to be disturbing and unacceptable, but
for you it's the norm. Damn Dink!

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:40:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:3v0jg2tub5uuaas0ng0939q1lagrk186jn@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously
>>>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yep
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want to then?
>>>
>>> The question is
>>
>>The question is
>
> It's not a question any more

No it's not, it's now rhetorical, the answer is, you push the Logic of the
Larder with transparent strawmen and equivocations because you're a stubborn
fool.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:00:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:40:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:rfjlg2dqlruq3dj242oi2s9fckj8hdva6u@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:3v0jg2tub5uuaas0ng0939q1lagrk186jn@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously
>>>>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yep
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want to then?
>>>>
>>>> The question is
>>>
>>>The question is
>>
>> It's not a question any more
>
>No it's not

Nope. Again you have no idea what you think, Dink, and again have
splendidly displayed the fact that you don't.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:00:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:40:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:rfjlg2dqlruq3dj242oi2s9fckj8hdva6u@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:3v0jg2tub5uuaas0ng0939q1lagrk186jn@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you want to then?
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is
>>>>
>>>>The question is
>>>
>>> It's not a question any more
>>
>>No it's not
>
> Nope.

No it's not, it's now rhetorical, the answer is, you push the Logic of the
Larder with transparent strawmen and equivocations because you're a stubborn
fool.

It ought to be obvious to you by now that there MUST be something wrong with
an argument that must be propped up with obvious strawmen and equivocating.
Make sense?

On 9/10/2006 5:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> Derek wrote:
>>
>>>> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>>>> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
>>>> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
>>>> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
>>>> suffering.
>>>>
>>>> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
>>>> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
>>>> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
>>>> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
>>>> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7
>>>
>>> He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
>>> available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.
>>
>> That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
>> is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
>> that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
>> of animals.
>>
>
> No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no more
> harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You just ****ed yourself up the ass! Once again,
economics triumphs over half-baked undergraduate (lower division) bogus
philosophy.

People - you included - don't ****ing *want* merely to survive. People
want more than "mere" survival. You could "survive", you cocksucker, if
I held you in a concentration camp and fed you 900 calories per day.

But look! You have explicitly said that "mere" survival is adequate.
You consciously and *willfully* - key - inflict more harm than you need
to do "merely" to survive. You do this based on your lust for comfort,
ease, convenience and professional prestige in your field. You could
abandon your current "lifestyle" and make some serious sacrifices in
order to reduce your death toll, but you don't *want* to do that. Once
again: it's all about you.

> Inflicting any more harm would violate a constraint.

Which, of course:

a) you can't identify
b) you violate every ****ing day

> Unfortunately, those constraints are currently being violated.

By *you* - needlessly.


> But the constraint on me as an individual
> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort

Translation: every self-servingly limited effort...

> to avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.

What total self-serving horseshit.

The fact is, scum, that all you do is refrain from consuming animal
parts, which we have shown is a purely symbolic gesture.

You're a shitstain.