"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms
to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals,
because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid
criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.


Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing
essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite.

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack
on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world,
and an irrational one at that.

We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.


In what respects do we disagree?

I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it
morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their
lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this
belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could
not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods.

To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree.


[..]