Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.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. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. 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'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. 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? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. 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. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. 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. Yes, it is. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? 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. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. 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. You've shown no evidence of either. 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. You're a joke. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.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. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. 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'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. 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? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, 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. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. 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. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. 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. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. 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. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. 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. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.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. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. 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'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. 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? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. 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. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. 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. Yes, it is. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? 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. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|