Vegetarian Discussion: Dh@, If A Moral Opinion Is Just A Personal Preference Like Having A Favourite Color...

Dh@, If A Moral Opinion Is Just A Personal Preference Like Having A Favourite Color...
Posts: 12

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2009-03-25 15:53:21 EST
...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?

Dutch
2009-03-25 16:53:55 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> ...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
> spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?

I guess the point would be to convince others that morals are just a
personal preference. The problem with it is that it would be a difficult
argument to make for even a competent ethicist, impossible for a functional
moron.


Rupert
2009-03-25 18:02:57 EST
On Mar 26, 4:53 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > ...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
> > spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?
>
> I guess the point would be to convince others that morals are just a
> personal preference. The problem with it is that it would be a difficult
> argument to make for even a competent ethicist, impossible for a functional
> moron.

Yeah, fair enough, you could do that; it's just that that doesn't seem
to be what he's been doing. He seems to have been trying to argue that
animal rights people are somehow "wrong" (and also rather bizarrely
that just about everyone except himself is animal rights).

Dutch
2009-03-25 19:25:10 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7625d24-8ea8-440c-a0e3-a62e593a978a@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 4:53 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > ...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
> > spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?
>
> I guess the point would be to convince others that morals are just a
> personal preference. The problem with it is that it would be a difficult
> argument to make for even a competent ethicist, impossible for a
> functional
> moron.

Yeah, fair enough, you could do that; it's just that that doesn't seem
to be what he's been doing. He seems to have been trying to argue that
animal rights people are somehow "wrong" (and also rather bizarrely
that just about everyone except himself is animal rights).
------------------------

He's not satisfied with doing what everyone else does and that is argue that
it is morally permissible to use animals as food (or not), he insists that
we should see it as doing the animals a favour. Unfortunately, being a
functional moron he is incapable of seeing what a circular argument that is.


Dutch
2009-03-30 15:53:24 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:25:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>He's not satisfied with doing what everyone else does and that is argue
>>that
>>it is morally permissible to use animals as food (or not),
>
> I point that out too.

That's all that is required.

>>he insists that
>>we should see it as doing the animals a favour.
>
> Not always. The thing there is you can't make a distinction between
> when it is and when it's not, since you people can't even acknowledge
> that it ever is.

That makes no sense. At the point when the animal comes into existence there
is no life of positive or negative value on which to base such a
distinction. You can only do that later, which is AW.


D*@.
2009-03-30 19:20:16 EST
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:25:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a7625d24-8ea8-440c-a0e3-a62e593a978a@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 26, 4:53 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > ...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
>> > spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?
>>
>> I guess the point would be to convince others that morals are just a
>> personal preference. The problem with it is that it would be a difficult
>> argument to make for even a competent ethicist, impossible for a
>> functional
>> moron.
>
>Yeah, fair enough, you could do that; it's just that that doesn't seem
>to be what he's been doing. He seems to have been trying to argue that
>animal rights people are somehow "wrong" (and also rather bizarrely
>that just about everyone except himself is animal rights).
>------------------------
>
>He's not satisfied with doing what everyone else does and that is argue that
>it is morally permissible to use animals as food (or not),

I point that out too.

>he insists that
>we should see it as doing the animals a favour.

Not always. The thing there is you can't make a distinction between
when it is and when it's not, since you people can't even acknowledge
that it ever is.

>Unfortunately, being a
>functional moron he is incapable of seeing what a circular argument that is.

It's a necessary part of considering whether or not raising them is cruel
to the animals...another distinction you people can't make because you
ALWAYS believe that:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY
benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

D*@.
2009-03-30 19:22:11 EST
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 4:53 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > ...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all? Why
>> > spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?
>>
>> I guess the point would be to convince others that morals are just a
>> personal preference. The problem with it is that it would be a difficult
>> argument to make for even a competent ethicist, impossible for a functional
>> moron.
>
>Yeah, fair enough, you could do that; it's just that that doesn't seem
>to be what he's been doing. He seems to have been trying to argue that
>animal rights people are somehow "wrong"

Up until now I've mostly felt that you people don't think things through
to the point of being totally inconsiderate of the animals, and are OVERLY!
dishonest for using such a gross misnomer to represent your elimination
objective. But on thinking in detail you people are "wrong" about everything
you're dishonest about, no doubt, and since you don't want to ask your
instructors or anyone else you respect to help you understand why it's important
to consider the animals' lives, I guess deep down you are probably aware that
you're "wrong" about that one too. Sadly, it's something you *should* want to
get over being wrong about and something you WOULD want to get over if
you actually cared as much about them as you try to give the impression you do.
Dutch too of course, and pearl and all the rest of you...every one of you!

>(and also rather bizarrely
>that just about everyone except himself is animal rights).

In contrast to that I don't even think misnomer advocates are animal rights,
hence reference to the misnomer. So since I've spent the last 8-9 years arguing
with people who want to give the impression they're in support of something
they certainly are NOT, what makes you think I shouldn't suspect known liars
like Dutch and Goo of trying--and doing a piss poor job--to give the impression
they're in support of something they certainly are NOT?

D*@.
2009-03-30 19:23:10 EST
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:53:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

That's all it could be. Ever. How could it be anything else?

>...then what is the point of having an ethical debate at all?

To exchange information and beliefs, and try to support the
beliefs we are most in favor of. You people want everyone to
believe the lives of animals raised for food are always so horrible
that they're always of negative value for the animals--even if some
of you are actually aware of the fact that some/many of them are
really of positive value. I want everyone to think beyond the
restrictions you would impose and appreciate things you don't
want them taking into consideration, like the animals who have
lives of positive value.

>Why spend so much time on an ethics newsgroup?

Where else?

Dutch
2009-04-01 17:39:51 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:lof8t4t0ps6q6488m839rihdojab7jpli4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:53:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:25:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>He's not satisfied with doing what everyone else does and that is argue
>>>>that
>>>>it is morally permissible to use animals as food (or not),
>>>
>>> I point that out too.
>>
>>That's all that is required.
>
> ONLY for someone who refuses to consider the animals.

For someone who sees that "consideration" i.e. the LoL, is self-serving
nonsense.


D*@.
2009-04-01 22:45:47 EST
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:39:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:29:12 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:53:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:25:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He's not satisfied with doing what everyone else does and that is argue
>>>>>that
>>>>>it is morally permissible to use animals as food (or not),
>>>>
>>>> I point that out too.
>>>
>>>That's all that is required.
>>
>> ONLY for someone who refuses to consider the animals. A person
>>who considers the animals must also consider the animals, and when
>>that happens it gets more complicated because sometimes the
>>conditions produce lives of negative value and sometimes they produce
>>lives of positive value. Anyone with even the most basic consideration
>>for the animals can appreciate that. Only those of you who have none
>>can not.
>>
>>>>>he insists that
>>>>>we should see it as doing the animals a favour.
>>>>
>>>> Not always. The thing there is you can't make a distinction between
>>>> when it is and when it's not, since you people can't even acknowledge
>>>> that it ever is.
>>>
>>>That makes no sense.
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to you because of your mental limitations. How
>>could you possibly distinguish between when life is of positive value and
>>when it is not, if you can't acknowledge that it ever is?
>>
>>Answer: You could not, therefore you can not, therefore anything having
>>to do with consideration of the animals "makes no sense" to you.
>
>For someone who sees that "consideration" i.e. the LoL, is self-serving
>nonsense.

The only people who would see consideration for the animals as
no more then self-serving nonsense would be people--like you--who
are OPPOSED to decent AW in favor of the misnomer.

>>>At the point when the animal comes into existence there
>>>is no life of positive or negative value on which to base such a
>>>distinction. You can only do that later,
>>
>> That's a lie. The market and conditions are already in place, meaning
>>they were set up BEFORE any existing animals were born.
>>
>>>which is AW.
>>
>> You can't even acknowledge the most basic aspect of AW, which is
>>that life can and should be of positive value for the animals humans raise.
>>The fact that you can't, clearly exposes the fact that you have no interest
>>in it. The fact that you oppose the basics of AW clearly exposes you as
>>an advocate of the misnomer. Duh.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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