On Jul 5, 4:15 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 3, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

[..]

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.

I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this
newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not.

That was just another one of your argumentative statements.

Just a statement of my opinion. If you want to try to give me some
reason to change my opinion, go ahead.

That's what I have been trying to do all along.


In my view, you have done a very poor job of it, and the reason is
that there actually are no good reasons why I am hypocritical which
don't apply equally well to you.

I don't
criticize people's diets and lifestyles here.

Neither do I.

Sure you do, you do it directly below.


The horror, the horror. Like all the antis here, you make unprovoked
and unfounded personal attacks on people, and you usually regard the
simple fact that they've gone vegan as sufficient justification for
it. I don't make unprovoked personal attacks on people, and I don't
comment on specific people's lifestyle choices.

Yes, I criticize Harrison for
supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support
any
similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not
hypocritical
for me to do that.

Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that
perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't
I criticize people for supporting such abuses?

Because you're not in any position to do so.

There's no justification for saying that. If you're in a position to
criticize other people, then there's no reason why I'm not.

People make choices based on
their financial situation, as you do. Obtaining food is not comparable to
raising fighting animals. You should be directly criticizing the forms of
animal husbandry which you find abusive, not other people. That's what I do.


That's also what I do. I don't spend my time criticizing other
people's consumption choices. It's true that I do think the best way
forward is for large numbers of people to modify their consumption
choices, and I do think there is a moral obligation for most people to
do so and I occasionally express that view. I really don't see what
you find so objectionable about that. You're talking as though I spend
all my time criticizing other people, it's actually the antis,
including yourself, who constantly do that. It really is incredible
effrontery for you to take me to task for criticizing other people.






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.

You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality.

It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind.

You do not appear to be very receptive to my attempts to explain what
my position actually is.

That's because you're not very articulate.

Well, that's your view of the matter. A lot of people find me an
extremely articulate presenter of many ideas I have studied in many
different fields.

Most of the time you simply
assert that you disagree, and when you do attempt to clarify your position
you end up just talking in circles, referring to "the literature", or
criticizing us for not being educated enough to understand you.


Well, that's the view of the matter that you've formed.



I'm not even clear with
which aspects of it you disagree.

I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own
beliefs,
they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals.

Well, I'm always happy to talk about my beliefs to people who are
prepared to actually listen. I can't talk to you about any of these
issues for five seconds without you crying "rubbish" in a way which
indicates that you don't understand the idea being discussed. So I'm
not particularly inclined to make the effort anymore.

Too bad, but it doesn't really bother me because I have already concluded
that you don't have anything earth-shattering to contribute anyway, despite
your belief to the contrary.







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.

I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that
"their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does
that rule out, exactly?

Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on
the
animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be
prohibited,
I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be
reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in
relative
contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for
any
service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal
agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing
group
of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If
vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead
of
pointing fingers it might be beneficial.

If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is
necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it
justified?

You just summarized the whole problem with your position in one sentence.
You must define and quantify "significantly", "harm", "necessary",
"compelling", "need" and "justified" before that question has any meaning.

Growing rice causes more harm than growing potatoes, why is it justified to
grow rice? bananas?

Well, these are good questions that are worth exploring. The point is
that we all draw the line somewhere. You draw the line somewhere, with
regard to the products you buy yourself and also with regard to the
products you regard it as acceptable for others to buy. We can argue
about where to draw the line, but you're saying that the place where I
choose to draw the line is somehow more problematic or somehow makes
me more hypocritical than you. Neither you nor any other antis here
has ever given any good reason to think that. That's the point.