Vegetarian Discussion: A Summary Of Where Things Stand In This Newsgroup, As Far As I Can See

A Summary Of Where Things Stand In This Newsgroup, As Far As I Can See
Posts: 53

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-09-02 21:06:27 EST
A number of people have accused me of a lack of clarity or coherence
in my position. Derek has said I am "all over the place", Ball has
said my position is "an incoherent slop", and Dutch has said that it
is "unintelligible."

I actually believe that I have held a position which is coherent, has
remained constant in its broad outlines over the years and that I have
not done a worse job of explaining it over the years than anyone else.
However that may be, if my ambition is to communicate effectively I
evidently must put more effort into making my position clear.
Unfortunately I cannot do that right now because my thesis is due at
the end of November, but I plan to write an essay about ethical
vegetarianism after that in which I will attempt to make my position
clear and defend it.

Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
to cause less harm to them, but that nevertheless I am still morally
entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
form. Dutch criticised this position as hypocritical. It would appear
that he has more recently retracted that. He has said that Ball is
morally entitled to pay taxes in the United States, even though he
thereby financially contributes to some activity which violates the
rights of human beings, because the burden of avoiding doing that
would be too high, and he appears to accept my contention that, by
analogy, the position of mine discussed above is consistent.

I would be kind enough to agree that Dutch has not done such a bad job
of presenting a coherent position clearly. We could ask for more
clarity about the details, as we could with my position. I cannot
offer any reasons at the moment why my position should be preferred,
(or why Dutch's position should be preferred), so I will think the
matter over more and see what I can come up with, if anything. Dutch
has likewise recently stated that he has "no critique of my position",
although he finds what I say to be "unintelligible".

I do not think that Ball has done very much at all by way of
presenting a coherent position. He has made the statement that
nonhuman animals don't have *any* rights, but he has also more
recently stated that there are some moral constraints on how we may
treat nonhuman animals and I think he also believes that it is
sometimes permissible to use force in order to see to it that those
constraints are not violated. Well, this is not consistent. An
individual A holds a moral right against a moral agent B that he or
she refrain from doing X if it is not morally permissible for B to do
X, and if it is morally permissible for A (if A is also a moral
agent), or a third party, to forcibly prevent B from doing X. That's
what a moral right is. If you believe that under some circumstances it
is morally impermissible for someone to set fire to a cat and it is
morally permissible for someone else to forcibly prevent you from
doing that, and for a government or private protection agency to
inflict penalties on you for doing so, then you believe that under
some circumstances some nonhuman animals hold some moral rights. And
as far as I know everyone believes that, even Ball and Tibor Machan,
their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It is true, as
Dutch points out, that you would not call a position an "animal rights
position" unless the enforceable constraints which it advocated on how
we should treat nonhuman animals were fairly strong, considerably
stronger than those widely believed to hold. Nevertheless all the
positions on offer maintain that nonhuman animals have some moral
rights. It is not true, as Rick Etter once claimed, that if it is
morally permissible for you to buy electricity then it follows that
nonhuman animals have no rights. That is just rubbish.

Ball has also made the assertion "Species membership counts". He
maintains that species membership in itself, not any sort of
difference in cognitive ability, is what gives rise to the difference
in moral status between humans and nonhumans. He maintains that this
is the common wisdom and that anyone who wishes to challenge it has a
burden of proof which remains unmet. This is incorrect. It is not the
common wisdom among the general public or among moral philosophers,
and in the exchange between Ball and myself which is currently up on
my webpage I do plenty to make it clear that anyone who holds that
position has a burden of proof. If the challenger of the position had
the burden of proof there would be various things that could be said.
One could, for example, point out that while the boundary between
human and nonhuman is sharp at the moment, if we were to trace back
our evolutionary history it would become vague. And we could also ask
"Why species membership, why not genus membership?" However, it
doesn't matter. The burden of defending his position rests squarely on
Ball, and he has not yet attempted the task.

And that is pretty much all that Ball has done by way of putting
forward a position. He has made two inconsistent statements and he has
made the assertion "Species membership counts". He's also occasionally
mentioned that he's in favour of animal welfare. Does he think it's
morally permissible to buy any form of food that is currently legally
available? We can only speculate; I really have no idea. Dutch seems
to think that it is. The view strikes me as implausible. But I will
have to thrash that one out another day. Ball says my position is an
"incoherent slop". Well, I don't agree with that assessment, no, but
you could always show me how it is done. Do something by way of
putting forward a coherent position yourself. You've told us pretty
much nothing about what you believe.

I conjecture that the position Derek holds is similar to Gary
Francione's, but he refuses to help clarify that point. He has not
said anything about animal ethics for some years, as far as I'm aware,
and he has declined a recent invitation to expound his views, saying
that those who are sufficiently fascinated can search the Google
archives. I myself am not sufficiently fascinated, so I cannot comment
on Derek's position. We should look at Gary Francione's books sometime
and do an evaluation of his position, but I believe its weaknesses
have been covered pretty thoroughly in this newsgroup over the years.

Whatever else you may say about David Harrison he has at least made
his position reasonably clear. It is similar to the position R. M.
Hare takes in "Why I am only a Demi-Vegetarian". You could raise
questions about whether Harrison actually follows through the
practical implications of that position. I believe I can offer good
reasons why the position should not be accepted but I will have to
leave that task for another day.

Pearl usually discusses factual information about specific issues
rather than debating the finer points of ethical theory.

Ron Hamilton usually confines himself to pointing out what an absurd
joke Ball is, which is indeed a worthy pursuit.

That is my view of where things stand on this newsgroup at the moment.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-02 23:37:04 EST
Rupert wrote:
> A number of people have accused me of a lack of clarity or coherence
> in my position. Derek has said I am "all over the place", Rudy has
> said my position is "an incoherent slop", and Dutch has said that it
> is "unintelligible."

All of us are right. I'll let Mr. Nash and Mr. Dutch speak for
themselves, if they choose, but my comment that your position is
incoherent slop is spot-on. First of all, you have vacillated back and
forth between a deontological "rights" position and a mushy welfarist
position, with no coherent explanation for the vacillation. I say
vacillated, but it's really more like vibrated.

Secondly, in your "new welfarist" (haw haw) incarnation, you can't give
a coherent explanation for what you mean by "better".

In short, you're almost entirely incoherent.

That was an awfully long fucking screed you puked out, rupie. I thought
you had a dissertation to revise?

Dutch
2008-09-02 23:43:34 EST
Rupert wrote:

> Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
> have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
> to cause less harm to them,

If they hold a basic right of life against us then we
are obliged to do much more than simply attempt to
cause less harm, we are obliged to attempt to stop
harming them altogether, beyond a statistically
inevitable number of accidents, as when we drive an
automobile safely.

> but that nevertheless I am still morally
> entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
> form.

Sure, as long as you recognize that you're stuck in a
hypocritical position.

> Dutch criticised this position as hypocritical. It
would appear
> that he has more recently retracted that.

No I didn't. My recent statement referred to a
specific position you took, it was not a blanket
approval of anything you say, you say a lot, it's not
all consistent.

> He has said that Ball is
> morally entitled to pay taxes in the United States, even though he
> thereby financially contributes to some activity which violates the
> rights of human beings, because the burden of avoiding doing that
> would be too high, and he appears to accept my contention that, by
> analogy, the position of mine discussed above is consistent.

I never said that at all, I said that you have not met
the burden of justifying the parallel you seem to
think is obvious.

> I would be kind enough to agree that Dutch has not done such a bad job
> of presenting a coherent position clearly. We could ask for more
> clarity about the details, as we could with my position. I cannot
> offer any reasons at the moment why my position should be preferred,
> (or why Dutch's position should be preferred), so I will think the
> matter over more and see what I can come up with, if anything. Dutch
> has likewise recently stated that he has "no critique of my position",
> although he finds what I say to be "unintelligible".

When I said I had no critique of your position I was
referring specifically to your comments in that one
post. Your position "in general" is unintelligible to
me. I think that is partly due to your writing style,
but a lot of it has to do with the nature of defending
the idea of animal rights. It almost demands that one
be unintelligible.

Rupert
2008-09-03 00:36:17 EST
On Sep 2, 8:43 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
> > have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
> > to cause less harm to them,
>
> If they hold a basic right of life against us then we
> are obliged to do much more than simply attempt to
> cause less harm, we are obliged to attempt to stop
> harming them altogether, beyond a statistically
> inevitable number of accidents, as when we drive an
> automobile safely.
>

True.

> > but that nevertheless I am still morally
> > entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
> > form.
>
> Sure, as long as you recognize that you're stuck in a
> hypocritical position.
>

Why hypocritical, if I'm doing what I'm morally entitled to do?

Is Ball stuck in a hypocritical position vis-a-vis the Iraq war,
should he acknowledge that?

>  > Dutch criticised this position as hypocritical. It
> would appear
>
> > that he has more recently retracted that.
>
> No I didn't. My recent statement referred to a
> specific position you took, it was not a blanket
> approval of anything you say, you say a lot, it's not
> all consistent.
>

I said you retracted your characterisation above the above position as
hypocritical, I did not say that you gave a blanket approval of
anything I said. If you have observed an inconsistency in my remarks
then please point it out.

> > He has said that Ball is
> > morally entitled to pay taxes in the United States, even though he
> > thereby financially contributes to some activity which violates the
> > rights of human beings, because the burden of avoiding doing that
> > would be too high, and he appears to accept my contention that, by
> > analogy, the position of mine discussed above is consistent.
>
> I never said that at all, I said that you have not met
> the burden of justifying the parallel you seem to
> think is obvious.
>

If there's a point of disanalogy, what is it?

> > I would be kind enough to agree that Dutch has not done such a bad job
> > of presenting a coherent position clearly.  We could ask for more
> > clarity about the details, as we could with my position. I cannot
> > offer any reasons at the moment why my position should be preferred,
> > (or why Dutch's position should be preferred), so I will think the
> > matter over more and see what I can come up with, if anything. Dutch
> > has likewise recently stated that he has "no critique of my position",
> > although he finds what I say to be "unintelligible".
>
> When I said I had no critique of your position I was
> referring specifically to your comments in that one
> post. Your position "in general" is unintelligible to
> me. I think that is partly due to your writing style,
> but a lot of it has to do with the nature of defending
> the idea of animal rights. It almost demands that one
> be unintelligible.


Rudy Canoza
2008-09-03 00:41:56 EST
Rupert wrote:
> [load of bullshit]
> However that [load of bullshit] may be, if my ambition is to communicate effectively I
> evidently must put more effort into making my position clear.

You could start - or try to start - by saying what is "good" about an
animal living a life worth living _per se_.


> Unfortunately I cannot do that right now because my thesis is due at
> the end of November,

That doesn't seem to deter you from spewing 900 words of hand-wringing.


> Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
> have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
> to cause less harm to them, but that nevertheless I am still morally
> entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
> form.

You are *not* so entitled - not if you wish to claim to be adhering to
principle. If I told you that all cocoa is produced by slave labor (it
isn't), you wouldn't buy one gram of the stuff. But I tell you that
field animals are chopped to bits to produce the stuff you eat daily,
and you handwave it away and try to downplay your participation in
animal slaughter as "merely financial". You fucking scum.


> I do not think that Rudy has done very much at all by way of
> presenting a coherent position.

Of course I have. Even Derek, an avowed "ara", would agree that I have.
You just hate my guts and you let that color your judgment.


> He has made the statement that
> nonhuman animals don't have *any* rights, but he has also more
> recently stated that there are some moral constraints on how we may
> treat nonhuman animals

Not at all inconsistent.


> Well, this is not consistent.

Perfectly consistent.


> Rudy has also made the assertion "Species membership counts".

It does.


> He maintains that species membership in itself, not any sort of
> difference in cognitive ability, is what gives rise to the difference
> in moral status between humans and nonhumans.

It does. Rights are meaningful only to humans.


> He maintains that this
> is the common wisdom and that anyone who wishes to challenge it has a
> burden of proof which remains unmet.

Correct.


> This is incorrect.

No, it is correct.


> It is not the
> common wisdom among the general public

Absolutely it is.


> I do plenty to make it clear that anyone who holds that
> position has a burden of proof.

Empty assertion. You are the one asserting - *ASSERTING* - that animals
deserve equal moral consideration. In the face of an overwhelming
social consensus that they do not, the burden of proof is on you. You
have utterly shirked the burden.

Social consensus does not translate _ipso facto_ to moral rectitude, but
it is not to be ignored. You have the burden, and you have shirked it.
That's mostly because you're a lightweight.


> And that is pretty much all that Rudy has done by way of putting
> forward a position.

False.


> Whatever else you may say about David Harrison he has at least made
> his position reasonably clear

He absolutely has not. His position has had to be dragged out of him
with a bulldozer, and still it is incoherent.


> Pearl usually discusses factual information

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Bull fucking shit. She is a completely fact-free zone.


> Ron Hamilton usually confines himself to

empty bullshit. That's exactly right.


Very curious: why do you refer to that fuckscum who posts as "Mr.
Smartypants" by his real name, but you won't refer to lesley by her real
name? Hmmmmm?

Rupert
2008-09-03 00:47:07 EST
On Sep 2, 8:37 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > A number of people have accused me of a lack of clarity or coherence
> > in my position. Derek has said I am "all over the place", Rudy has
> > said my position is "an incoherent slop", and Dutch has said that it
> > is "unintelligible."
>
> All of us are right.  I'll let Mr. Nash and Mr. Dutch speak for
> themselves, if they choose, but my comment that your position is
> incoherent slop is spot-on.  First of all, you have vacillated back and
> forth between a deontological "rights" position and a mushy welfarist
> position, with no coherent explanation for the vacillation.  I say
> vacillated, but it's really more like vibrated.
>

A position is deontological if it says that there are some moral
constraints on how we should behave, and we should observe those
constraints regardless of the consequences. Most welfarist positions
are deontological in this sense. There's nothing incoherent about
that. I'm advocating a form of extreme welfarism which recognises some
constraints, I made that clear plenty of times. You've done nothing to
show that it's incoherent or that you've got anything better to offer.

> Secondly, in your "new welfarist" (haw haw) incarnation, you can't give
> a coherent explanation for what you mean by "better".
>

It's not a new incarnation, and you've got the wrong idea if you think
that I now accept the Logic of the Larder. This whole debate about the
concept of a better outcome is a side-issue. You've said that you're
not interested in the details of any particular axiology I want to
advocate, you want to know *why* one more life that is on the whole
worth living makes the outcome better. I maintain that there is no
answer to this question and none need be given, it is legitimate to
take it as a primitive proposition. I will explore the literature on
axiology for you, after I have given my thesis to my supervisor, and
see if anyone does anything by way of answering the question. My
position is that the question does not need to be answered.

> In short, you're almost entirely incoherent.
>

I'm not. Anyway, at least I actually say something about what I
believe.

> That was an awfully long fucking screed you puked out, rupie.  I thought
> you had a dissertation to revise?

We're having a quiet morning at work at the moment, because we've
finished getting ready for the Study Skills course next week, and the
new staff are attending talks as part of their induction. We're having
a meeting with the Head of Department in a little while. I did not
bring my laptop to work so I cannot work on my thesis right now; I
will work on it in the evening. It is going quite well and I plan to
give it to my supervisor in a few days' time.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-03 00:50:10 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:43 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
>>> have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
>>> to cause less harm to them,
>> If they hold a basic right of life against us then we
>> are obliged to do much more than simply attempt to
>> cause less harm, we are obliged to attempt to stop
>> harming them altogether, beyond a statistically
>> inevitable number of accidents, as when we drive an
>> automobile safely.
>>
>
> True.

Empty bullshit from you. The implication is that *you* are obliged not
to participate in activities and processes that wantonly violate their
rights. But you don't refrain.


>>> but that nevertheless I am still morally
>>> entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
>>> form.
>> Sure, as long as you recognize that you're stuck in a
>> hypocritical position.
>>
>
> Why hypocritical, if I'm doing what I'm morally entitled to do?

You are *NOT* doing what you're morally entitled to do. You are not
morally entitled to

* repeatedly
* with full awareness
* voluntarily
* *unncessarily*

participate in processes that cause animal slaughter, while trying
futilely to maintain that you "respect" animal rights.

Your participation is not "merely financial".



>>> Dutch criticised this position as hypocritical. It
>>> would appear that he has more recently retracted that.
>>
>> No I didn't. My recent statement referred to a
>> specific position you took, it was not a blanket
>> approval of anything you say, you say a lot, it's not
>> all consistent.
>>
>
> I said you retracted your characterisation above the above position as
> hypocritical, I did not say that you gave a blanket approval of
> anything I said. If you have observed an inconsistency in my remarks
> then please point it out.
>
>>> He has said that Rudy is
>>> morally entitled to pay taxes in the United States, even though he
>>> thereby financially contributes to some activity which violates the
>>> rights of human beings, because the burden of avoiding doing that
>>> would be too high, and he appears to accept my contention that, by
>>> analogy, the position of mine discussed above is consistent.
>> I never said that at all, I said that you have not met
>> the burden of justifying the parallel you seem to
>> think is obvious.
>>
>
> If there's a point of disanalogy, what is it?

Your participation in animal slaughter is voluntary. You could stop it
without fear of legal consequence. I can't refuse to pay taxes without
fear of legal consequence.

There you go. Your analogy is bullshit.

Rupert
2008-09-03 01:01:58 EST
On Sep 2, 9:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > [load of bullshit]
> > However that [load of bullshit] may be, if my ambition is to communicate effectively I
> > evidently must put more effort into making my position clear.
>
> You could start - or try to start - by saying what is "good" about an
> animal living a life worth living _per se_.
>

Is it good if an individual has a pleasant experience?

> > Unfortunately I cannot do that right now because my thesis is due at
> > the end of November,
>
> That doesn't seem to deter you from spewing 900 words of hand-wringing.
>

No, it doesn't. It's not hand-wringing, weirdo.

> > Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
> > have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
> > to cause less harm to them, but that nevertheless I am still morally
> > entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
> > form.
>
> You are *not* so entitled - not if you wish to claim to be adhering to
> principle.  If I told you that all cocoa is produced by slave labor (it
> isn't), you wouldn't buy one gram of the stuff.  

Because I can easily do without. It's not so easy to boycott
commercial agriculture entirely, and I probably wouldn't do that even
if all of it used slave labour. During the nineteenth century when
people were campaigning for the abolition of slavery, it was hard to
entirely boycott the products of slave labour and the abolitionists
did not do that. I suppose you would have told them that in that case
they may as well give up on the whole idea of the abolition of
slavery.

> But I tell you that
> field animals are chopped to bits to produce the stuff you eat daily,
> and you handwave it away and try to downplay your participation in
> animal slaughter as "merely financial".  You fucking scum.
>

Why can't you stop paying taxes in the United States and supporting
its criminal government, you fucking scum? And why can't you at least
make *some* effort to reduce the amount of harm caused to animals by
the production of the food you eat? Don't blabber "tu quoque", I could
just as easily blabber "tu quoque" to you but instead I make some
effort to engage with the issue.

I've got to eat something, Ball. I could become fully self-sufficient
in food, yes, but that would be a big burden and it would also mean
foregoing opportunities to engage in philanthropy which would relieve
a considerable amount of suffering in the third world. I believe that
there are quite strong constraints on how we should treat nonhuman
animals but not strong enough to require me to become fully self-
sufficient in food. You too believe that there are some constraints on
how we should treat nonhuman animals (although you haven't specified
which ones), but not strong enough to require you to stop eating
factory-farmed meat. You've done nothing to show that your position is
more coherent than mine. You could raise questions about whether my
position is consistent with the rejection of speciesism, yes, I
acknowledge that point and I will think that one over.

> > I do not think that Rudy has done very much at all by way of
> > presenting a coherent position.
>
> Of course I have.  

Well, I must have missed it. What's your position? When have you ever
said *anything* about what we are and are not morally entitled to do
to animals?

> Even Derek, an avowed "ara", would agree that I have.

Derek, as someone else observed, is a lacklustre sycophant. He hasn't
said anything about ethics on this newsgroup in years. Most readers of
this newsgroup think you are a joke, don't you worry about that. Three
of the regulars regularly tell you that you are, and your Google star
rating says it all. You are widely perceived as being a joke, and in
my view with good reason.


>   You just hate my guts and you let that color your judgment.
>

Not at all. I bear no particular ill-will towards you. I despise you
and have contempt for you, yes. I do not hate you. I gave a balanced
discussion of your contributions.

> > He has made the statement that
> > nonhuman animals don't have *any* rights, but he has also more
> > recently stated that there are some moral constraints on how we may
> > treat nonhuman animals
>
> Not at all inconsistent.
>
> > Well, this is not consistent.
>
> Perfectly consistent.
>

I explained why it was not consistent, asserting twice that it is
consistent and snipping the discussion of why it isn't is pitiful and
lame. Just the sort of thing we have come to expect from you.

> > Rudy has also made the assertion "Species membership counts".
>
> It does.
>

Perhaps, but you are obliged to argue the point and have never made
any attempt to do so.

> > He maintains that species membership in itself, not any sort of
> > difference in cognitive ability, is what gives rise to the difference
> > in moral status between humans and nonhumans.
>
> It does.  Rights are meaningful only to humans.
>

Why?

> > He maintains that this
> > is the common wisdom and that anyone who wishes to challenge it has a
> > burden of proof which remains unmet.
>
> Correct.
>
> > This is incorrect.
>
> No, it is correct.
>

It's rubbish, but even if, contrary to fact, it were the common
wisdom, I would still have done enough to show that the burden of
proof is on you. You have failed to meet it.

> > It is not the
> > common wisdom among the general public
>
> Absolutely it is.
>

Crap.

> > I do plenty to make it clear that anyone who holds that
> > position has a burden of proof.
>
> Empty assertion.  You are the one asserting - *ASSERTING* - that animals
> deserve equal moral consideration.  In the face of an overwhelming
> social consensus that they do not, the burden of proof is on you.  You
> have utterly shirked the burden.
>

Nonsense. See the discussion on my webpage. I wipe the floor with you.

We are starting our meeting now. I will finish replying to this later.


Rudy Canoza
2008-09-03 01:10:46 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:37 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> A number of people have accused me of a lack of clarity or coherence
>>> in my position. Derek has said I am "all over the place", Rudy has
>>> said my position is "an incoherent slop", and Dutch has said that it
>>> is "unintelligible."
>> All of us are right. I'll let Mr. Nash and Mr. Dutch speak for
>> themselves, if they choose, but my comment that your position is
>> incoherent slop is spot-on. First of all, you have vacillated back and
>> forth between a deontological "rights" position and a mushy welfarist
>> position, with no coherent explanation for the vacillation. I say
>> vacillated, but it's really more like vibrated.
>>
>
> A position is deontological if it says that there are some moral
> constraints on how we should behave, and we should observe those
> constraints regardless of the consequences.

It's deontological if it says animals objectively have rights. You have
held to that position.


>> Secondly, in your "new welfarist" (haw haw) incarnation, you can't give
>> a coherent explanation for what you mean by "better".
>>
>
> It's not a new incarnation,

Yes, it is. It's intended to accommodate that Chinee girl's consumption
of dog and rat.


> This whole debate about the
> concept of a better outcome is a side-issue.

No, it isn't. Your belief about what's "better" is at the fundamental
core of your "new welfarist" (haw haw haw) vacillation (vibration), and
you can't give *any* coherent meaning to "better" or "good" at all.


>> In short, you're almost entirely incoherent.
>>
>
> I'm not.

You are. You are completely incoherent, and all the proof that's needed
is furnished in your utter inability to give *any* meaning whatever to
"good" or "better". They aren't primitive concepts as you use them,
Your Wobbliness - they're utterly meaningless.


>> That was an awfully long fucking screed you puked out, rupie. I thought
>> you had a dissertation to revise?
>
> We're having a quiet morning at work at the moment,

A quiet morning supporting the totalitarian regime, you mean.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-03 01:26:55 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Sep 2, 9:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> [load of bullshit]
>>> However that [load of bullshit] may be, if my ambition is to communicate effectively I
>>> evidently must put more effort into making my position clear.
>> You could start - or try to start - by saying what is "good" about an
>> animal living a life worth living _per se_.
>>
>
> Is it good if an individual has a pleasant experience?

That's not what you're talking about, rupie, and you fucking well *know*
it. I fucking *knew* you were going to try that trick, you fucking
twat. We're not talking about an entity having pleasant experiences
*instead of* unpleasant ones, as your smarmy dishonest question clearly
implies. We're talking about existence, pure and simple. We're talking
about your compound condition - animals existing *and* having pleasant
experiences - versus never existing. That's what we're talking about.

It is *not* "good" if animals exist and have pleasant experiences versus
never existing at all. It simply is not - not in any way you can
possibly demonstrate. The comparison is completely bogus - meaningless.

We *never* were talking about an existing individual having a pleasant
experience, you cunt. We were talking about an individual existing, or
not existing. That was the subject. You said it is good if they exist.
That puts you with Fuckwit David Harrison, whether you like it or not.


>>> Unfortunately I cannot do that right now because my thesis is due at
>>> the end of November,
>> That doesn't seem to deter you from spewing 900 words of hand-wringing.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. It's not hand-wringing,

It is.



>>> Once I made the statement that the nonhuman animals in crop fields
>>> have a right against us that we reform our system of agriculture so as
>>> to cause less harm to them, but that nevertheless I am still morally
>>> entitled to buy the products of plant-based agriculture in its present
>>> form.
>> You are *not* so entitled - not if you wish to claim to be adhering to
>> principle. If I told you that all cocoa is produced by slave labor (it
>> isn't), you wouldn't buy one gram of the stuff.
>
> Because I can easily do without.

Meaningless where "rights" are concerned. You may not morally violate
an entity's true *rights* based on your (false) sense of "need". I have
shown there is no legitimate distinction between "needs" and "mere
wants". Your belief in your "need" for rights-violating products is a
false belief.


>> But I tell you that
>> field animals are chopped to bits to produce the stuff you eat daily,
>> and you handwave it away and try to downplay your participation in
>> animal slaughter as "merely financial". You fucking scum.
>>
>
> Why can't you stop paying taxes

_tu quoque_ - invalid and rejected.


> I've got to eat something, Rudy.

You don't. You *want* to eat something.


> I could become fully self-sufficient
> in food, yes, but that would be a big burden

That's a mere inconvenience. Rights trump your convenience.

You have now admitted you don't believe in animal "rights" at all.
Thanks for that.




> and it would also mean
> foregoing opportunities to engage in philanthropy

Irrelevant. Your wish to engage in philanthropy does not justify your
violation of rights.


>>> I do not think that Rudy has done very much at all by way of
>>> presenting a coherent position.
>> Of course I have.
>
> Well, I must have missed it.

No, you dishonestly dismissed it because you can't address it.


>> Even Derek, an avowed "ara", would agree that I have.
>
> Derek, as someone else observed, is a lacklustre sycophant.

No.


>> You just hate my guts and you let that color your judgment.
>>
>
> Not at all.

Entirely. That's all it is.


>>> He has made the statement that
>>> nonhuman animals don't have *any* rights, but he has also more
>>> recently stated that there are some moral constraints on how we may
>>> treat nonhuman animals
>> Not at all inconsistent.
>>
>>> Well, this is not consistent.
>> Perfectly consistent.
>>
>
> I explained why it was not consistent

You didn't. You emptily asserted that it wasn't, but you're wrong - it is.


>>> Rudy has also made the assertion "Species membership counts".
>> It does.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but you are obliged to argue the point

I have done.


>>> He maintains that species membership in itself, not any sort of
>>> difference in cognitive ability, is what gives rise to the difference
>>> in moral status between humans and nonhumans.
>> It does. Rights are meaningful only to humans.
>>
>
> Why?

Because no member of any other species has any grasp of them at all.

Are you fucking serious? If you are, you're even more brain-damaged
than previously thought.


>>> He maintains that this
>>> is the common wisdom and that anyone who wishes to challenge it has a
>>> burden of proof which remains unmet.
>> Correct.
>>
>>> This is incorrect.
>> No, it is correct.
>>
>
> It's rubbish,

No. It's correct.


>>> It is not the
>>> common wisdom among the general public
>> Absolutely it is.
>>
>
> Crap.

Nope. It's absolutely the common wisdom among the general public, and
you know it.


>>> I do plenty to make it clear that anyone who holds that
>>> position has a burden of proof.
>> Empty assertion. You are the one asserting - *ASSERTING* - that animals
>> deserve equal moral consideration. In the face of an overwhelming
>> social consensus that they do not, the burden of proof is on you. You
>> have utterly shirked the burden.
>>
>
> Nonsense.

No, not at all.

Once again, we see you blurt something out, and it's the proof that
you're wrong.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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