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

ups.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. 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?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

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

ups.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.

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. 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.

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.

You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.

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?

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?

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?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.


Which counterexamples are you advocating?

You have lots of judgmental

attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"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.


[..]

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

ups.com...





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

roups.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.


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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:50:14 GMT, "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. I don't
criticize people's diets and lifestyles here.

You're constantly doing just that. You're an argumentative, natural
bully and you don't even realise it.

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.

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

Neither do I.

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?





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.

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.





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?