Vegetarian Discussion: Rupert's Lies In Moderated Groups And His Open Endorsement Of Animal Agriculture

Rupert's Lies In Moderated Groups And His Open Endorsement Of Animal Agriculture
Posts: 37

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Derek
2008-09-11 06:42:24 EST
>From 'Freethinkers and atheists', a moderated newsgroup where
rupie hides while telling lies about the people he's running from.
http://tinyurl.com/65uoze

> > > I apologise that I have fallen behind in this thread. Sick and twisted
> > > little cripple Derek Nash of Eastbourne, UK has hacked my Yahoo
> > > account and I am trying to figure out what to do about it.
> >
> > What happened Rupert?
>
>He is a regular on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He claims that his
>name is Derek Nash, that he lives in Eastbourne, UK, that he is a
>vegan, and that he is unable to walk due to spinal stenosis.

No, that's false. I've never claimed that I cannot walk. I can
walk, but not very far.

>He once
>got another regular in that newsgroup thrown out of her parish by
>revealing information about her to the head of her parish.

She would not have been thrown out if the information I
forwarded was inaccurate or insignificant.

>When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some forms
>of animal agriculture,

It's about time you admitted that, but it's unfortunate that you
didn't have the balls to admit it here, choosing instead to reveal
your endorsement of animal agriculture in a moderated group
away from the regulars on aaev you've fooled for so long.

>he said I was a "welfarist" and that I should not be on the
>committee of an animal rights charity (Animal Liberation NSW)
>and that he would write to them and tell them.

Well, you are a "welfarist", and being that you're no longer
an animal rights advocate you have no business being on
the committee of an animal rights charity, fraud.

"I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon

>He was recently taunting me on the basis of my mental health
>history

No, that's another lie.

>so I started swearing at him.

And I suppose you're going to blame me for that wrong
behaviour as well, eh rupie?

>He has now revealed that he has gained unauthorised access to my
>Yahoo email account.

No, that's another lie. At no time did I ever reveal that I
gained access to your email account. Stop lying to these
people on moderated groups where I cannot post my
direct responses to your lies, coward.

>That account has 14000 messages in it dating back to 2002. He
>also appears to be doing rather extensive research about me, he
>recently linked to a post I made to a maths newsgroup in 2006.

And yet you still believed, irrationally, that the quote I produced
here was something I found by hacking into your email account
rather than from the math groups you knew I had been reading.
And from that irrational thinking you went on to make serious
allegations against me to police forces around the world and to
your service provider, and you haven't the decency to retract
your false allegations since realising they were false, either. As
we can plainly see, you're a liar and a coward with no moral
integrity at all.

Pearl
2008-09-11 08:20:14 EST
"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...

> And yet you still believed, irrationally,

Rationally. You wrote:

"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"

*"keeps telling"*.

That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
communications, not just reference to "a point...made" prior to
the March 2008 mention in the archives. You told me that you
were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..









Derek
2008-09-11 09:04:22 EST
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
>
>> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
>
>Rationally. You wrote:
>
>"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
>
>*"keeps telling"*.
>
>That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
>communications

No, it does not. It shows that I have been reading his posts
which he allows to be stored in Google archives. There was
no reason for him to suspect that I had hacked into his email
account, and there was no reason for him to then go on and
make those false accusations against me.

>You told me that you
>were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..

I had MSN remove them. Aren't you in the least bit surprised
that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
many years? You wrote,

"Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."

Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,

"I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon

and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
endorses animal agriculture,

"When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
forms of animal agriculture ...."

just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
with welfare reforms?

Pearl
2008-09-11 09:39:58 EST
"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fk4ic4drn00oidc4ai7n4s6ptp3fp34rgl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
> >
> >> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
> >
> >Rationally. You wrote:
> >
> >"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
> >
> >*"keeps telling"*.
> >
> >That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
> >communications
>
> No, it does not.

It does. It conveys knowledge of ongoing communication.

> It shows that I have been reading his posts
> which he allows to be stored in Google archives.

Show us where his uncle *keeps telling* him to <--quote-->.

> There was
> no reason for him to suspect that I had hacked into his email
> account, and there was no reason for him to then go on and
> make those false accusations against me.

Yes there was. See above.

> >You told me that you
> >were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..
>
> I had MSN remove them.

You boasted that you could work out his passwords.

> Aren't you in the least bit surprised
> that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
> endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
> many years? You wrote,
>
> "Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."
>
> Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,

He is pro- AR and veganism. You've continued to give
credence to your brother's testimony of wanton cruelty.

> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
> and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
> endorses animal agriculture,
>
> "When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
> forms of animal agriculture ...."
>
> just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
> those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
> with welfare reforms?

It is your contemptible behaviour that I am opposing here.

Rupert has given you numerous opportunities to discuss the
issues but you've responded with abuse or outright refusal.



Derek
2008-09-11 10:28:47 EST
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:39:58 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fk4ic4drn00oidc4ai7n4s6ptp3fp34rgl@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
>> >
>> >Rationally. You wrote:
>> >
>> >"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
>> >
>> >*"keeps telling"*.
>> >
>> >That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
>> >communications
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>It does. It conveys knowledge of ongoing communication.

I'm sure his uncle is still telling him the same thing.

>> It shows that I have been reading his posts
>> which he allows to be stored in Google archives.
>
>Show us where his uncle *keeps telling* him to <--quote-->.

I can't because a quote such as that doesn't exist.

>> There was
>> no reason for him to suspect that I had hacked into his email
>> account, and there was no reason for him to then go on and
>> make those false accusations against me.
>
>Yes there was.

No, and he knows it, even if you're too deluded to accept it.

>> >You told me that you
>> >were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..
>>
>> I had MSN remove them.
>
>You boasted that you could work out his passwords.

Ah, well that's different. Unlike most people, David and I are
mirror twins, and it's sometimes very easy to 'work out' some
things between twins without exactly being told it.

>> Aren't you in the least bit surprised
>> that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
>> endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
>> many years? You wrote,
>>
>> "Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>> pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."
>>
>> Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,
>
>He is pro- AR and veganism.

His quotes below these lines show that he's rejected AR and
taken on "new welfarism", you silly girl.

>> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
>> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
>> Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>>
>> and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
>> endorses animal agriculture,
>>
>> "When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
>> forms of animal agriculture ...."
>>
>> just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
>> those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
>> with welfare reforms?
>
>It is your contemptible behaviour that I am opposing here.

Of course, and we know why. But why bother? He's not
a [retch] 'member of The Side.' Unlike you, I've been very
productive by unearthing yet another fraud who tries to
impede the AR movement with animal welfare reforms. You,
though, as stupid as you are, still cling to the false hope that
he IS an ARA, even after reading his quotes that reject it.
Just doing my job.

>Rupert has given you numerous opportunities to discuss the
>issues but you've responded with abuse or outright refusal.

You'll find all of the abuse comes from Rupie, not me, and
I gave him an opportunity to engage me in the thread,
"Derek, what's a vegan" http://tinyurl.com/6owbpv

Go to that link and see where I addressed each question
in full and gave him an opportunity to engage me with
probably the most difficult moral dilemmas vegans face.
Now open the thread and read his 4-line empty response
to it on a blank fucking page.

Rupert
2008-09-11 10:39:10 EST
On Sep 11, 10:28 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:39:58 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fk4ic4drn00oidc4ai7n4s6ptp3fp34rgl@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
>
> >> >Rationally. You wrote:
>
> >> >"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
>
> >> >*"keeps telling"*.
>
> >> >That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
> >> >communications
>
> >> No, it does not.
>
> >It does. It conveys knowledge of ongoing communication.
>
> I'm sure his uncle is still telling him the same thing.
>
> >> It shows that I have been reading his posts
> >> which he allows to be stored in Google archives.
>
> >Show us where his uncle *keeps telling* him to <--quote-->.
>
> I can't because a quote such as that doesn't exist.
>
> >> There was
> >> no reason for him to suspect that I had hacked into his email
> >> account, and there was no reason for him to then go on and
> >> make those false accusations against me.
>
> >Yes there was.
>
> No, and he knows it, even if you're too deluded to accept it.
>
> >> >You told me that you
> >> >were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..
>
> >> I had MSN remove them.
>
> >You boasted that you could work out his passwords.
>
> Ah, well that's different. Unlike most people, David and I are
> mirror twins, and it's sometimes very easy to 'work out' some
> things between twins without exactly being told it.
>
> >> Aren't you in the least bit surprised
> >> that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
> >> endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
> >> many years? You wrote,
>
> >> "Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> >> pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."
>
> >> Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,
>
> >He is pro- AR and veganism.
>
> His quotes below these lines show that he's rejected AR and
> taken on "new welfarism", you silly girl.
>
> >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> >> Rupert 3 Aug 2008http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
> >> and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
> >> endorses animal agriculture,
>
> >> "When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
> >> forms of animal agriculture ...."
>
> >> just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
> >> those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
> >> with welfare reforms?
>
> >It is your contemptible behaviour that I am opposing here.
>
> Of course, and we know why. But why bother? He's not
> a [retch] 'member of The Side.' Unlike you, I've been very
> productive by unearthing yet another fraud who tries to
> impede the AR movement with animal welfare reforms. You,
> though, as stupid as you are, still cling to the false hope that
> he IS an ARA, even after reading his quotes that reject it.
> Just doing my job.
>
> >Rupert has given you numerous opportunities to discuss the
> >issues but you've responded with abuse or outright refusal.
>
> You'll find all of the abuse comes from Rupie, not me, and
> I gave him an opportunity to engage me in the thread,
> "Derek, what's a vegan"http://tinyurl.com/6owbpv
>
> Go to that link and see where I addressed each question
> in full and gave him an opportunity to engage me with
> probably the most difficult moral dilemmas vegans face.
> Now open the thread and read his 4-line empty response
> to it on a blank fucking page.

Why is it an "empty response"?

Pearl
2008-09-11 12:35:33 EST
Reply to both Derek and Rupert here.

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:76865b3e-e7d2-4710-bd50-92a4576c8b49@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 10:28 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:39:58 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fk4ic4drn00oidc4ai7n4s6ptp3fp34rgl@4ax.com...
> > >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > >> >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
> >
> > >> >> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
> >
> > >> >Rationally. You wrote:
> >
> > >> >"Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
> >
> > >> >*"keeps telling"*.
> >
> > >> >That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
> > >> >communications
> >
> > >> No, it does not.
> >
> > >It does. It conveys knowledge of ongoing communication.
> >
> > I'm sure his uncle is still telling him the same thing.

That's not what was conveyed, and you know it.

> > >> It shows that I have been reading his posts
> > >> which he allows to be stored in Google archives.
> >
> > >Show us where his uncle *keeps telling* him to <--quote-->.
> >
> > I can't because a quote such as that doesn't exist.

A few references must exist for your story to hold water.

> > >> There was
> > >> no reason for him to suspect that I had hacked into his email
> > >> account, and there was no reason for him to then go on and
> > >> make those false accusations against me.
> >
> > >Yes there was.
> >
> > No, and he knows it, even if you're too deluded to accept it.

You know there's no other way of interpreting what you said.

> > >> >You told me that you
> > >> >were hacking your brother's web-pages, so it's not beneath you..
> >
> > >> I had MSN remove them.
> >
> > >You boasted that you could work out his passwords.
> >
> > Ah, well that's different. Unlike most people, David and I are
> > mirror twins, and it's sometimes very easy to 'work out' some
> > things between twins without exactly being told it.

In conjunction with your messing with his web-pages.

> > >> Aren't you in the least bit surprised
> > >> that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
> > >> endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
> > >> many years? You wrote,
> >
> > >> "Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> > >> pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."
> >
> > >> Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,
> >
> > >He is pro- AR and veganism. You've continued to give
credence to your brother's testimony of wanton cruelty.
> >
> > His quotes below these lines show that he's rejected AR and
> > taken on "new welfarism", you silly girl.

"Welfare" is still a form of being in favour of (some) rights.

> > >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> > >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> > >> Rupert 3 Aug 2008http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
> >
> > >> and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
> > >> endorses animal agriculture,
> >
> > >> "When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
> > >> forms of animal agriculture ...."
> >
> > >> just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
> > >> those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
> > >> with welfare reforms?
> >
> > >It is your contemptible behaviour that I am opposing here.
> >
> > Of course, and we know why. But why bother? He's not
> > a [retch] 'member of The Side.' Unlike you, I've been very
> > productive by unearthing yet another fraud who tries to
> > impede the AR movement with animal welfare reforms. You,
> > though, as stupid as you are, still cling to the false hope that
> > he IS an ARA, even after reading his quotes that reject it.
> > Just doing my job.

Rupert has been honest about his position (at the time) all along.
Your behaviour is despicable, and your intent as ever malicious.

> > >Rupert has given you numerous opportunities to discuss the
> > >issues but you've responded with abuse or outright refusal.
> >
> > You'll find all of the abuse comes from Rupie, not me, and
> > I gave him an opportunity to engage me in the thread,
> > "Derek, what's a vegan"http://tinyurl.com/6owbpv
> >
> > Go to that link and see where I addressed each question
> > in full and gave him an opportunity to engage me with
> > probably the most difficult moral dilemmas vegans face.
> > Now open the thread and read his 4-line empty response
> > to it on a blank fucking page.
>
> Why is it an "empty response"?

'Theory and practice of Animal Rights

- \ufffdGary L. Francione

We treat animals how we used to treat human slaves.
What possible justification is there for that, asks Gary Francione

Do animals have moral rights? What kind of legal status should we afford
them? This debate has become hugely confused. Some animal rights
campaigners maintain that we should allow animals the same rights enjoyed
by humans. That is, of course, absurd. There are many human rights that
simply have no application to non-humans.

I would like to propose something a little different: that a sensible and
coherent theory of animal rights should focus on just one right for animals.
That is the right not to be treated as the property of humans.

Let me explain why this makes sense. At present, animals are commodities
that we own in the same way that we own automobiles or furniture. Like
these inanimate forms of property, animals have only the value that we
choose to give them. Any moral or other interest an animal has represents
an economic cost that we can choose to ignore.

We have laws that supposedly regulate our treatment of our animal property,
and prohibit the infliction of "unnecessary" suffering. These laws require
that we balance the interests of humans and animals in order to ensure that
animals are treated "humanely". It is, however, a fallacy to suppose that we
can balance human interests, which are protected by claims of right in
general and of a right to own property in particular, against the interests of
animals which, as property, exist only as a means to the ends of humans.
The animal in question is always a "pet" or a "laboratory animal" or a
"game animal" or a "food animal" or a "circus animal" or some other form
of animal property that exists solely for our use. We prohibit animal suffering
only when it has no economic benefit. The balance is unbalanced from the
outset.

There are parallels here with the institution of human slavery. While we
tolerate varying degrees of human exploitation, we no longer regard it as
legitimate to treat anyone, irrespective of their particular characteristics, as
the property of others. In a world deeply divided on many moral issues,
one of the few norms steadfastly endorsed by the international community
is the prohibition of human slavery. Some forms of slavery are worse than
others, yet we prohibit all of them - however "humane" - because
they more or less allow the fundamental interests of slaves to be ignored if
it provides a benefit to slave owners. We recognise all humans as having a
basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

Is there a morally sound reason not to extend this single right - the right
not to be treated as property - to animals? Or to ask the question another
way, why do we deem it acceptable to eat animals, hunt them, confine and
display them in circuses and zoos, use them in experiments or rodeos, or
otherwise treat them in ways in which we would never think it appropriate
to treat any human irrespective of how "humane" we were being?

The response that animals lack some special characteristic that is possessed
solely by humans not only flies in the face of the theory of evolution, but is
completely irrelevant to whether it is morally permissible to treat non-humans
as commodities - just as differences among humans would not serve to justify
treating some as slaves. Also of no use is the response that it is acceptable
for humans to exploit non-humans because it is "traditional" or "natural" to
do so. This merely states a conclusion and does not constitute an argument.

The bottom line is that we cannot justify human domination of non-humans
except by appeal to religious superstition focused on the supposed spiritual
superiority of humans. Our "conflicts" with animals are mostly of our own
doing. We bring billions of sentient animals into the world in order to kill
them for reasons that are often trivial. We then seek to understand the nature
of our moral obligations to these animals. But by bringing these animals into
existence for reasons that we would never consider appropriate for humans,
we have already decided that animals are outside the scope of our moral
community altogether.

Accepting that animals have this one right does not entail letting cows,
chickens, pigs and dogs run free in the streets. We have brought these
animals into existence and they depend on us for their survival. We should
care for those currently in existence, but we should stop causing more to
come into being to serve as our resources. We would thereby eliminate any
supposed conflicts we have with animals. We may still have conflicts with
wild animals, and we would have to address hard questions about how to
apply equal consideration to humans and animals in those circumstances.

Recognising animal rights really means accepting that we have a duty not to
treat sentient non-humans as resources. The interesting question is not
whether the cow should be able to sue the farmer for cruel treatment, but
why the cow is there in the first place.

- \ufffd2006 Gary L. Francione. Please do not reprint without written permission
from the author http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/facbio/francione.html

Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law in
Newark, New Jersey. He is the author of Introduction to Animal Rights:
Your Child or the Dog? (2000), Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), and
Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996).
His most recent book, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and the Law, will be
published by Columbia University Press in 2007.

http://anima.org.ar/liberation/approaches/one-right-for-all.html



Rudy Canoza
2008-09-11 13:09:53 EST
pearl wrote:
> "Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
>
>> And yet you still believed, irrationally,
>
> Rationally. You wrote:
>
> "Start doing what your uncle William keeps telling you to do;"
>
> *"keeps telling"*.
>
> That conveys ongoing continual eavesdropping Rupert's private
> communications,

It conveys no such thing, and you wouldn't have even suggested it if you
weren't reflexively defending a psychotic wanker.


Derek
2008-09-11 13:21:17 EST
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:35:33 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>Reply to both Derek and Rupert here.
>
>"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:76865b3e-e7d2-4710-bd50-92a4576c8b49@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 11, 10:28 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:39:58 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> > >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fk4ic4drn00oidc4ai7n4s6ptp3fp34rgl@4ax.com...
>> > >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:20:14 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> > >> >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:osphc41dd2onl6vep1rr38831u3lr5au4e@4ax.com...
>> >

>> > >> Aren't you in the least bit surprised
>> > >> that Rupert (someone you refer to as an animal rights advocate)
>> > >> endorses animal agriculture, and that he's fooled you for so
>> > >> many years? You wrote,
>> > >>
>> > >> "Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>> > >> pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me."
>> > >>
>> > >> Rupert isn't an animal rights advocate,
>> > >
>> > >He is pro- AR and veganism.
>> >
>> > His quotes below these lines show that he's rejected AR and
>> > taken on "new welfarism", you silly girl.
>
>"Welfare" is still a form of being in favour of (some) rights.

No. Animal welfare impedes animal rights. To quote Francione,

"New welfarism is problematic morally because it involves
animal advocates who claim to endorse abolition campaigning
for supposedly more “humane” forms of exploitation. This is
no different from opposing torture, rape, child molestation, or
human slavery and campaigning for more “humane” versions
of those forms of exploitation rather than working directly for
their abolition. If animal exploitation cannot be morally justified,
then animal rights advocates should not be promoting “better”
ways of doing something wrong."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=140

>> > >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
>> > >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
>> > >> Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>> > >>
>> > >> and the part you've snipped away shows conclusively that he
>> > >> endorses animal agriculture,
>> > >>
>> > >> "When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
>> > >> forms of animal agriculture ...."
>> > >>
>> > >> just like any other animal welfarist. Why do you try to defend
>> > >> those who reject animal rights while endorsing animal agriculture
>> > >> with welfare reforms?
>> > >
>> > >It is your contemptible behaviour that I am opposing here.
>> >
>> > Of course, and we know why. But why bother? He's not
>> > a [retch] 'member of The Side.' Unlike you, I've been very
>> > productive by unearthing yet another fraud who tries to
>> > impede the AR movement with animal welfare reforms. You,
>> > though, as stupid as you are, still cling to the false hope that
>> > he IS an ARA, even after reading his quotes that reject it.
>> > Just doing my job.
>
>Rupert has been honest about his position (at the time) all along.

No. Read the damn quotes.

"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj

"I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon

But, only 4 days later.

"... it would not be that misleading to refer to
myself as an "animal rights advocate".
Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o

He's not being honest about his position while flip-flopping
from one position to the other, and you know it.

>> > >Rupert has given you numerous opportunities to discuss the
>> > >issues but you've responded with abuse or outright refusal.
>> >
>> > You'll find all of the abuse comes from Rupie, not me, and
>> > I gave him an opportunity to engage me in the thread,
>> > "Derek, what's a vegan"http://tinyurl.com/6owbpv
>> >
>> > Go to that link and see where I addressed each question
>> > in full and gave him an opportunity to engage me with
>> > probably the most difficult moral dilemmas vegans face.
>> > Now open the thread and read his 4-line empty response
>> > to it on a blank fucking page.
>>
>> Why is it an "empty response"?
>
>'Theory and practice of Animal Rights
>
>- ©Gary L. Francione
>
>We treat animals how we used to treat human slaves.
>What possible justification is there for that, asks Gary Francione
>
>Do animals have moral rights? What kind of legal status should we afford
>them? This debate has become hugely confused. Some animal rights
>campaigners maintain that we should allow animals the same rights enjoyed
>by humans. That is, of course, absurd. There are many human rights that
>simply have no application to non-humans.
>
>I would like to propose something a little different: that a sensible and
>coherent theory of animal rights should focus on just one right for animals.
>That is the right not to be treated as the property of humans.
>
>Let me explain why this makes sense. At present, animals are commodities
>that we own in the same way that we own automobiles or furniture. Like
>these inanimate forms of property, animals have only the value that we
>choose to give them. Any moral or other interest an animal has represents
>an economic cost that we can choose to ignore.
>
>We have laws that supposedly regulate our treatment of our animal property,
>and prohibit the infliction of "unnecessary" suffering. These laws require
>that we balance the interests of humans and animals in order to ensure that
>animals are treated "humanely". It is, however, a fallacy to suppose that we
>can balance human interests, which are protected by claims of right in
>general and of a right to own property in particular, against the interests of
>animals which, as property, exist only as a means to the ends of humans.
>The animal in question is always a "pet" or a "laboratory animal" or a
>"game animal" or a "food animal" or a "circus animal" or some other form
>of animal property that exists solely for our use. We prohibit animal suffering
>only when it has no economic benefit. The balance is unbalanced from the
>outset.
>
>There are parallels here with the institution of human slavery. While we
>tolerate varying degrees of human exploitation, we no longer regard it as
>legitimate to treat anyone, irrespective of their particular characteristics, as
>the property of others. In a world deeply divided on many moral issues,
>one of the few norms steadfastly endorsed by the international community
>is the prohibition of human slavery. Some forms of slavery are worse than
>others, yet we prohibit all of them - however "humane" - because
>they more or less allow the fundamental interests of slaves to be ignored if
>it provides a benefit to slave owners. We recognise all humans as having a
>basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
>
>Is there a morally sound reason not to extend this single right - the right
>not to be treated as property - to animals? Or to ask the question another
>way, why do we deem it acceptable to eat animals, hunt them, confine and
>display them in circuses and zoos, use them in experiments or rodeos, or
>otherwise treat them in ways in which we would never think it appropriate
>to treat any human irrespective of how "humane" we were being?
>
>The response that animals lack some special characteristic that is possessed
>solely by humans not only flies in the face of the theory of evolution, but is
>completely irrelevant to whether it is morally permissible to treat non-humans
>as commodities - just as differences among humans would not serve to justify
>treating some as slaves. Also of no use is the response that it is acceptable
>for humans to exploit non-humans because it is "traditional" or "natural" to
>do so. This merely states a conclusion and does not constitute an argument.
>
>The bottom line is that we cannot justify human domination of non-humans
>except by appeal to religious superstition focused on the supposed spiritual
>superiority of humans. Our "conflicts" with animals are mostly of our own
>doing. We bring billions of sentient animals into the world in order to kill
>them for reasons that are often trivial. We then seek to understand the nature
>of our moral obligations to these animals. But by bringing these animals into
>existence for reasons that we would never consider appropriate for humans,
>we have already decided that animals are outside the scope of our moral
>community altogether.
>
>Accepting that animals have this one right does not entail letting cows,
>chickens, pigs and dogs run free in the streets. We have brought these
>animals into existence and they depend on us for their survival. We should
>care for those currently in existence, but we should stop causing more to
>come into being to serve as our resources. We would thereby eliminate any
>supposed conflicts we have with animals. We may still have conflicts with
>wild animals, and we would have to address hard questions about how to
>apply equal consideration to humans and animals in those circumstances.
>
>Recognising animal rights really means accepting that we have a duty not to
>treat sentient non-humans as resources. The interesting question is not
>whether the cow should be able to sue the farmer for cruel treatment, but
>why the cow is there in the first place.
>
>- ©2006 Gary L. Francione. Please do not reprint without written permission
>from the author http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/facbio/francione.html
>
>Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
>Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law in
>Newark, New Jersey. He is the author of Introduction to Animal Rights:
>Your Child or the Dog? (2000), Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), and
>Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996).
>His most recent book, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and the Law, will be
>published by Columbia University Press in 2007.
>
>http://anima.org.ar/liberation/approaches/one-right-for-all.html

Right, but according to Rupert,

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at
all"
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"When I said that I would be prepared to countenance some
forms of animal agriculture, he said I was a "welfarist" and
that I should not be on the committee of an animal rights
charity (Animal Liberation NSW) and that he would write to
them and tell them."
Rupert 5 Sept http://tinyurl.com/65uoze

He said, "I would be prepared to countenance some forms
of animal agriculture ...." and accepts " that some nonhuman
animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which
are such that it is better that they live that life than that they
not live at all" That's not an animal rights advocate talking,
Lesley, it's an animal welfarist endorsing animal agriculture.

Pearl
2008-09-11 14:25:04 EST
"Derek" <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j1jic41r3oeb15sg4s1oo5vvee459rj47t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:35:33 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
<..>
> He said, "I would be prepared to countenance some forms
> of animal agriculture ...." and accepts " that some nonhuman
> animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which
> are such that it is better that they live that life than that they
> not live at all" That's not an animal rights advocate talking,
> Lesley, it's an animal welfarist endorsing animal agriculture.

He wants a good outcome and has said that if certain forms
of "animal agriculture" equal or lower overall suffering and
conversely increases overall happiness in the world generally
he can see no legitimate reason to oppose it. I disagree for
reasons stated above, amongst others, aiming to put an end
to the killing altogether, aiming for the best possible scenario -
without compromise. *You* won't get anywhere with abuse.


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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