Vegetarian Discussion: Rupie Mccallum, Skirt Boy And Deontologist "ar" True Believer

Rupie Mccallum, Skirt Boy And Deontologist "ar" True Believer
Posts: 23

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-11 15:52:46 EST
Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
belief in 'ar'.

Rupert
2007-07-11 18:06:59 EST
On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> belief in 'ar'.

I wrote to Derek:

"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. Inflicting any more
harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
currently being violated. But the constraint on me as an individual
living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort. And
considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
what counts as a reasonable effort. All deontologists hold that
sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."

Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
AR. Okay, fine.


Dutch
2007-07-11 18:56:43 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184191619.763685.319050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>> belief in 'ar'.
>
> I wrote to Derek:
>
> "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.

Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".

> Inflicting any more
> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> currently being violated.

By you, for your comfort and convenience.

> But the constraint on me as an individual
> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.

Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
including maintaining my current lifestyle.

> And
> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> what counts as a reasonable effort.

All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
reasonable.

> All deontologists hold that
> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> AR. Okay, fine.

I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
what you believe.




Rupert
2007-07-11 22:30:06 EST
On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184191619.763685.319050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> > "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.
>
> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>

Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

> > Inflicting any more
> > harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> > currently being violated.
>
> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>

Not by me. On my behalf.

> > But the constraint on me as an individual
> > living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> > avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>
> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>

Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation. So what? I should
conclude that anyone can buy anything they want?

> > And
> > considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> > what counts as a reasonable effort.
>
> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> reasonable.
>

I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

> > All deontologists hold that
> > sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> > constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> > were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>
> > Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> > AR. Okay, fine.
>
> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> what you believe.

I've said quite a lot about it. I think I've been about as clear as
you. What do you want to know?


Rudy Canoza
2007-07-12 01:05:49 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>> belief in 'ar'.
>
> I wrote to Derek:
>
> "No, I do not.

Derek showed that you do.

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-12 01:13:46 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184191619.763685.319050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>> "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.
>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>
>
> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.

You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
ethics is not a solitary endeavor.


>>> Inflicting any more
>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>>> currently being violated.
>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>
>
> Not by me. On my behalf.'

No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy. You've
tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
I pounded it back up your ass with a club. It is not
"mere" financial support, you cunt - it is active,
repeated, fully aware participation.

Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
cunt. It's active participation in a process, with
your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
financial support", you filthy goddamned fucking cunt.


>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.

It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
Everything you write about this, you filthy fat fuck,
is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
your supposed beliefs would impose on you.


>>> And
>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".

We most certainly are, you cocksucker.


>>> All deontologists hold that
>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>>> AR. Okay, fine.
>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>> what you believe.
>
> I've said quite a lot about it.

Then you deny it.

You gutless, amoral, self-serving twat.

Rupert
2007-07-12 02:39:56 EST
On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1184191619.763685.319050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >>>> belief in 'ar'.
> >>> I wrote to Derek:
> >>> "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.
> >> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>
> > Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>
> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
>

I'm afraid the point you are trying to make here is lost on me.

> >>> Inflicting any more
> >>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
> >>> currently being violated.
> >> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>
> > Not by me. On my behalf.'
>
> No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy.

No, I don't. But it's not a particularly important point.

> You've
> tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.

"Financial support" is a correct description. You've engaged in some
ludicrous and comical ranting about it, which achieved nothing.

> It is not
> "mere" financial support, you cunt - it is active,
> repeated, fully aware participation.
>
> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
> cunt. It's active participation in a process, with
> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
> financial support", you filthy goddamned fucking cunt.
>

Blah blah blah...

> >>> But the constraint on me as an individual
> >>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
> >>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
> >> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
> >> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>
> > Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
>
> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat fuck,
> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
>

We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.
Why is it that your position is reasonable but I am sleazily making
"exemptions" to what my beliefs would "really" demand of me for the
sake of my comfort?

> >>> And
> >>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
> >>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
> >> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
> >> reasonable.
>
> > I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
> > have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>
> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
>

No, not at all. My decisions about my lifestyle are a lot less self-
serving than any of yours. You're trying to tell me that I "should"
adhere to this incredibly high standard, when you yourself do pretty
much nothing. It's odd that you don't seem to feel the least
embarrassment.

> >>> All deontologists hold that
> >>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
> >>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
> >>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
> >>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
> >>> AR. Okay, fine.
> >> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
> >> what you believe.
>
> > I've said quite a lot about it.
>
> Then you deny it.
>

Nope.

> You gutless, amoral, self-serving twat.

Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
the amount of suffering in the world like me, instead of farcically
calling me "amoral" and "self-serving"? You might feel better about
yourself.


Rupert
2007-07-12 02:45:58 EST
On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
> >> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
> >> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
> >> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
> >> belief in 'ar'.
>
> > I wrote to Derek:
>
> > "No, I do not.
>
> Derek showed that you do.

Well, he didn't reply to my post. I believe that it is morally
permissible to follow a lifestyle which involves buying products which
were produced in ways that caused animal deaths, when that is the only
way to avail oneself of an opportunity to alleviate a larger amount of
suffering in other ways. However, I reject the claim that this is
correctly described as "killing animals".


Rudy Canoza
2007-07-12 02:48:27 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 8:56 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1184191619.763685.319050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>>>> "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.
>>>> Your moral constituency is *you*, not "society".
>>> Everyone has some views about what society should be like.
>> You don't get to make your own rules, skirt-boy -
>> ethics is not a solitary endeavor.
>>
>
> I'm afraid

We know.


>>>>> Inflicting any more
>>>>> harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are
>>>>> currently being violated.
>>>> By you, for your comfort and convenience.
>>> Not by me. On my behalf.'
>> No, you participate in the process, skirt-boy.
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do. Actively, knowingly, repeatedly, and
unnecessarily. Proved.


>> You've tried this obscene dodge about "financial support", and
>> I pounded it back up your ass with a club.
>
> "Financial support" is a correct description.

It is not, rupie. It's a responsibility-shirking
dodge, as has been proved. It's an attempt to
minimize, invalidly and unethically, the depth and
extent of your involvement in animal slaughter. You
*KNOW*, you cunt, that it is not "mere" financial
support. You also know, you smelly cunt, that although
you don't explicitly use the word "mere", it is tightly
woven into the meaning of "financial support". You are
trying, without success, to minimize the extent of your
complicity - to downplay it, cover it up. You fail.


>> It is not
>> "mere" financial support, you cunt - it is active,
>> repeated, fully aware participation.
>>
>> Don't try this "financial support" bullshit again,
>> cunt. It's active participation in a process, with
>> your eyes wide open. It is ***MORE*** than "mere
>> financial support", you filthy goddamned fucking cunt.
>>
>
> Blah blah blah...

Concession noted.


>>>>> But the constraint on me as an individual
>>>>> living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to
>>>>> avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort.
>>>> Reasonable is a weasel word, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean,
>>>> including maintaining my current lifestyle.
>>> Yes, it's a word that's open to interpretation.
>> It's a filthy self-serving weasel word. It's
>> specifically chosen to try to carve out an invalid,
>> rupie-sleazy-comfort-enhancing exemption for you.
>> Everything you write about this, you filthy fat fuck,
>> is to try to exempt yourself from the moral strictures
>> your supposed beliefs would impose on you.
>>
>
> We all think there are some constraints on how we should treat
> animals. And we all think there are some limits on our obligations to
> avoid buying products that were produced in ways that harm animals.

LISTEN, you skinny girlish cocksucker: if someone
credibly told you that all "Persian" rugs were woven by
Pakistani child slave labor, how many would you buy?


>>>>> And
>>>>> considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to
>>>>> what counts as a reasonable effort.
>>>> All of which revolves around your personal self-serving definition of
>>>> reasonable.
>>> I really don't think you are in any position to call the decisions I
>>> have made about my lifestyle "self-serving".
>> We most certainly are, you cocksucker.
>>
>
> No, not at all.

Yes, at all, you skinny feminine cocksucker.


>>>>> All deontologists hold that
>>>>> sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are
>>>>> constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I
>>>>> were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints."
>>>>> Apparently by your definition this passage means I profess a belief in
>>>>> AR. Okay, fine.
>>>> I don't recall you ever having the guts to say clearly and unequivocally
>>>> what you believe.
>>> I've said quite a lot about it.
>> Then you deny it.
>>
>
> Nope.

Yep.


>> You gutless, amoral, self-serving twat.
>
> Why don't you have a go at making some real effort by way of reducing
> the amount of suffering in the world like me

You don't do a fucking thing to reduce suffering, you
lying shitbag.

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-12 02:49:09 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 5:52 am, Rudy Canoza <p...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Back in the excellent thread "Karen Winter, impenitent
>>>> schismatic and bird diddler", rupie declared himself a
>>>> deontologist in his approach to 'ar', specifically
>>>> denying being a utilitarian. That means he professes a
>>>> belief in 'ar'.
>>> I wrote to Derek:
>>> "No, I do not.
>> Derek showed that you do.
>
> Well, he didn't reply to my post.

He replied to plenty of them, and he showed that you
believe in 'ar'.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron