"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.

"Gloria" wrote in message
...
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.

That's completely incorrect, I do not criticize anyone's diet or lifestyle
here. I criticize their statements or arguments when I find them to be
flawed or poorly thought-out, which is the primary purpose of a newsgroup.
You perceive me to be a bully because my criticisms are frequently spot-on.

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?

"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


snippage..




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?
==========================
And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about
animals
when ALL they do is avoid meat. It is equally right of us to criticize
those that
ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what
they
think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths
of billions of
animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are
just blowing
hot air and hypocrisy, fool.



snippage...



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?
=======================
there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for
potatoes. There
is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes
far more
brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses.
Why do you
think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point
out the ignorance
and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer?

On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...

snippage..



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?
==========================

And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about
animals
when ALL they do is avoid meat.

Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do
significantly more than just avoid meat.

It is equally right of us to criticize
those that
ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what
they
think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths
of billions of
animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are
just blowing
hot air and hypocrisy, fool.


That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not
entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very
obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've
got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use
usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society.
That is true of you as well.




snippage...



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?

=======================
there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for
potatoes. There
is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes
far more
brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses.
Why do you
think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point
out the ignorance
and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer?

If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and
potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't
really think that. You've got this idea that just because someone eats
rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any
criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously
utterly absurd. It's a joke. Time and time again you make this
farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that
only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be
boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my
view is more hypocritical than yours. Why is the place where you draw
the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the
point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it,
you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should
either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any
criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I
should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if
you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the
fuss about?

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...

snippage..



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?
==========================

And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care
about
animals
when ALL they do is avoid meat.

Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do
significantly more than just avoid meat.
========================
Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily.


It is equally right of us to criticize
those that
ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about
what
they
think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the
deaths
of billions of
animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are
just blowing
hot air and hypocrisy, fool.


That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not
entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very
obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've
got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use
usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society.
That is true of you as well.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do
nothing
but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to
call hypocrites like you
to task, killer. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just
that doing so by killing
even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool...

Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer?






snippage...



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?

=======================
there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for
potatoes. There
is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those
causes
far more
brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses.
Why do you
think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to
point
out the ignorance
and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer?

If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and
potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't
really think that.
==================
No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a
concern to you.
However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a
stepping
stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool.


You've got this idea that just because someone eats
rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any
criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously
utterly absurd. It's a joke.
====================
No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims
of 'saving' animals from
unnecessary death and suffering. You have NO requirement to eat either
one, yet you do for your
convinience.


Time and time again you make this
farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that
only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be
boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my
view is more hypocritical than yours.
==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people. Yet there you are, doing just
that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.



Why is the place where you draw
the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the
point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it,
you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should
either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any
criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I
should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if
you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the
fuss about?
===========================
The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. But then,
I expect you do nothing
except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks
for proving your hypocrisy, fool.

"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.

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

Neither do I.

Sure you do, you do it directly below.

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. 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.


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. 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.


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?

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.