On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
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.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.


and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.


Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that. You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?


[..]

==========================
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.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.


No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

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.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is
vague and open to interpretation.


Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.


If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
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.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where
the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then? Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
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.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall.

That's because you don't listen, you think you're so smart that you don't
need to.

I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

I've told you what I think of you.

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

Already done.


and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out
of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.


Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that.

Stop beating around the bush liar. You believe that ALL consumption of
animal products is morally wrong, how could you not, you think there exists
a presumption of "equal consideration".

You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?

**** off, sophist. Typical ARA.




[..]

==========================
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.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.


No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.


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.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure
is
vague and open to interpretation.


Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

I don't treat anything with kid gloves you sophist prick. I'm saying that
being against "animal products" is a bogus issue born out of some
fuzzy-headed AR college lounge. The reality of collateral deaths reveals it.


Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.


If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
vague and open to interpretation.

No it's not. It means "member of the species Homo sapiens", AND everything
that that implies.

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.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the
line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a
line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then?

We're talking about harming animals in food production, not pornography, not
rape, not murder, sophist.

Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

Touchy aren't you? Sophist.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have, so let's have a look at those
clear statements you've made regarding animals over
the years you've spent here to save Rupert some time
extracting them from you.

"I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in
commercial meat production that I refuse to
eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this
and health reasons I eat no meat at all."
Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa

and

"Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate
the treatment of animals in the mass meat
industry I choose not not eat it."
Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

Hope that helps.

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:34:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

Snip and run, liar Ditch. It's all you have left: nothing at all.

"irate vegan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:34:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

Snip and run, liar Ditch. It's all you have left: nothing at all.


Hows the garden going?

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:06:41 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

Hows the garden going?

The wet weather we're having here has ruined my petunias.
I dug the soggy, miserable-looking things up today. I don't
think I'll bother with them next year. I think my cacti have
rotted at the roots as well since deciding to keep them
outside in an old china butlers sink. I had em for years!

On Jul 5, 6:29 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
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.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall.

That's because you don't listen, you think you're so smart that you don't
need to.


You're such a presumptuous nitwit. As I say, I've received totally
irrational abuse from day one. There have been some attempts at
rational argument, which I have listened to and engaged with.

I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

I've told you what I think of you.


That's not the point. This is an animal ethics newsgroup, we're not
here to discuss your evaluation of me as a person. I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting. He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.
All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity. The only reason why
you're siding with him is because he's "on your side". Do you really
want to associate yourself with such palpable nonsense?

Let's see, what are the differences between you and me? You think that
there's a lot that is seriously wrong with the way we treat animals at
the moment, and if I have it right you're prepared to advocate that
the coercive power of the state be used to change this situation. We
probably differ a little bit in our ultimate vision of how society
should be, though you've never made it clear exactly how. You'd
probably countenance more animal agriculture than I would, for
example. And you might say, I can't give any rational grounds for
drawing the line in the place I choose to draw it rather than the
place you choose to draw it, wherever that may be. The place where I
choose to draw the line just reflects what I personally feel
comfortable with, rather than the outcome of any process of rational
deliberation. All right, fine. But the situation is symmetrical, no?
Do you seriously maintain that you can do a better job than me of
giving a rational foundation for the particular place where you happen
to choose to draw the line?

Also, while you are prepared to advocate the use of state power to
bring about your vision (I take it), you are not prepared ever to
express any moral disapproval of anyone for consuming any animal
products. Expressing moral disapproval of people who buy products
which were produced in ways that harm humans, like the products of
slave labour for example, is fine, but for some reason moral
disapproval of products which were produced in ways that harm nonhuman
animals is absolutely out. Humans and nonhuman animals are in totally
separate categories. Well, that's your position. I don't happen to
share it. If we're prepared to sometimes pass judgement on people for
consuming products whose production harmed humans, I don't see why we
shouldn't also sometimes countenance expressing moral disapproval of
buying products whose production harmed nonhuman animals. Contrary to
all your paranoid ranting I don't make a habit of telling people "You
are bad", but I do have a moral position which entails that there are
some limits on the extent to which we are permitted to financially
support animal suffering.

Now, apparently, because there are these differences between us, and
because I continue to hold these positions despite everything you have
said, I am a hypocrite, a "bonehead", like everyone else "of my
stripe", a "stuffed shirted loser" who is immune to rational argument,
and you apparently feel comfortable with no longer bothering to
rationally engage with me but just finding entertainment in dishing
out abuse. Do you not think there is some possibility that this could
be a bit exaggerated? After all, you yourself used to hold a position
quite similar to mine, while knowing all the facts that I do now. I
think sensible people would agree that intelligent and reasonable
people hold quite a diversity of views about the issues.

What exactly *is* the reason why I should never pass moral judgement
on anyone for consuming any type of animal product whatsoever? Do you
really maintain that you've given an adequate argument for this claim
of yours, and the fact that I still don't agree with you shows that I
am utterly immune to rational argument and you might as well just
spend your time abusing me? I mean, I think it would have to be agreed
that I'm a moderately intelligent person, I've been making a good
faith effort to listen to you, and I haven't been able to discern the
rational foundation for your position yet. I suspect that quite a lot
of other quite intelligent people would feel the same way. Could it be
you need to do a better job of explaining yourself, or perhaps re-
think your position?

Yes, you've told me what you think of me, but I really have a hard
time accepting that it's the attitude of a rational person. Must just
be my personal limitations, I guess.

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

Already done.


Perhaps, but I still genuinely don't know which position of mine you
have in mind when you say I am irrational and immune to rational
argument. Perhaps you could just help out poor little me and specify
in what way I rationally ought to be more like you.



and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out
of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.

Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that.

Stop beating around the bush liar. You believe that ALL consumption of
animal products is morally wrong, how could you not, you think there exists
a presumption of "equal consideration".


You really are such an incredible imbecile. You make up stupid
fantasies about me which directly contradict what I have repeatedly
said, and call me a liar for stating my actual position as opposed to
your fantasy of it. You don't understand what I mean by "equal
consideration". That is very well-established. Maybe, as you say, I'm
deluding myself when I think I mean anything by it, but however that
may be I don't mean what you think it ought to mean. So this argument
of yours that I must believe that all consumption of animal products
is morally wrong, when I've repeatedly stated otherwise, is absolutely
idiotic.

You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?

**** off, sophist. Typical ARA.


So that's how you respond to a polite invitation to rationally support
your position. I guess it all goes to show how immune to rational
argument I must be.







[..]

==========================
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.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.

No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.


Wonderful. I wonder if you could show me where.







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.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure
is
vague and open to interpretation.

Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

I don't treat anything with kid gloves you sophist prick. I'm saying that
being against "animal products" is a bogus issue born out of some
fuzzy-headed AR college lounge. The reality of collateral deaths reveals it.


Yeah, well, I think that's a joke. Collateral deaths occur in plant-
based agriculture, therefore all forms of animal agriculture must be
perfectly all right. It's laughable. How can you seriously assert such
pathetic nonsense? This is the reason why I'm immune to rational
argument, because I don't buy this rubbish? Whatever.



Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.

If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
vague and open to interpretation.

No it's not. It means "member of the species Homo sapiens", AND everything
that that implies.


It doesn't imply very much at all. There are a lot of ways in which
*most* members of the species Homo sapiens are very different from
members of other species. And there are a lot of properties which only
members of the species Homo sapiens have. You once mentioned being
able to solve a differential equation. I can do that and you can't.

If you mean "member of the species Homo sapiens", fine. Then it's your
job to explain why membership in a particular species is morally
relevant, any more than membership in a particular race. If you mean
some of the other properties we've been talking about, you've got to
specify which ones. You're skirting the obligation to be clear about
what you mean by "humanhood". Sometimes you mean one thing, sometimes
another, and you switch from one to the other without inhibition in
order to get your argument to work.






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.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the
line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a
line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then?

We're talking about harming animals in food production, not pornography, not
rape, not murder, sophist.


You mean not rape and murder of humans. All right, so for you it's
just obvious that we are entitled to morally criticize people who buy
products whose production harmed humans, but we are never under any
circumstances entitled to morally criticize anyone for buying any
product which harmed animals in any way whatsoever. The day you are
prepared to articulate some rational grounds for holding this view, I
will listen. Until then, I will continue to regard all your rantings
about my supposed hypocrisy as irrational presumptuous garbage.

Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

Touchy aren't you? Sophist.

Not in the least. I did not express any irritation whatsoever, despite
your extraordinary obnoxiousness and effrontery. I engaged with you in
a calm and rational manner. You utterly failed to engage with my
points in any serious way, you just spouted more abuse. I suppose you
can rest content with knowing that reason and decency are on your side
and I'm just a hypocrite and a stuffed shirted loser who is immune to
rational argument and you have no obligation to engage with me
seriously or even treat me with basic courtesy. Keep up the good work,
Dutch.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 6:29 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
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.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome
nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall.

That's because you don't listen, you think you're so smart that you don't
need to.


You're such a presumptuous nitwit. As I say, I've received totally
irrational abuse from day one. There have been some attempts at
rational argument, which I have listened to and engaged with.

With a few notable exceptions most of what you have said has been pure
rhetoric in my opinion.

I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

I've told you what I think of you.


That's not the point. This is an animal ethics newsgroup, we're not
here to discuss your evaluation of me as a person.

Then stop bringing up your complaints about vebal abuse.

I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting.

I don't read his points, they don't interest me any more.

But we're not here to talk about him either.

He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.

Maybe he says that, I don't agree with what you just said. Then again,
you're a sneaky sophist, so I can't trust you to interpert what people say
honestly.

All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity. The only reason why
you're siding with him is because he's "on your side". Do you really
want to associate yourself with such palpable nonsense?

I'm not siding with him.

Let's see, what are the differences between you and me? You think that
there's a lot that is seriously wrong with the way we treat animals at
the moment, and if I have it right you're prepared to advocate that
the coercive power of the state be used to change this situation. We
probably differ a little bit in our ultimate vision of how society
should be, though you've never made it clear exactly how.

You must be kidding. It's YOU who has avoided giving a clearly articulated
vision of how things should be.

You'd
probably countenance more animal agriculture than I would, for
example.

I'd more than countenance it, I would heartily support it. The most
sustainable form of farming mixes animal and plant agriculture in a
symbiosis.

And you might say, I can't give any rational grounds for
drawing the line in the place I choose to draw it rather than the
place you choose to draw it, wherever that may be. The place where I
choose to draw the line just reflects what I personally feel
comfortable with, rather than the outcome of any process of rational
deliberation. All right, fine.

Where is it?

But the situation is symmetrical, no?
Do you seriously maintain that you can do a better job than me of
giving a rational foundation for the particular place where you happen
to choose to draw the line?

Yes, easily, because you avoid comitting yourself to any clear position.

Also, while you are prepared to advocate the use of state power to
bring about your vision (I take it), you are not prepared ever to
express any moral disapproval of anyone for consuming any animal
products.

Incorrect, I disapprove of the consumption of ape meat.

Expressing moral disapproval of people who buy products
which were produced in ways that harm humans, like the products of
slave labour for example, is fine,

Who says? You don't think that some of what you buy wasn't produced by slave
labour, or something close to it? Oppose the thing itself, but don't attack
people who are doing something that you do yourself.

but for some reason moral
disapproval of products which were produced in ways that harm nonhuman
animals is absolutely out.

Now you're disapproving of a method of production, not attacking a person.
You're slippery.

Humans and nonhuman animals are in totally
separate categories. Well, that's your position.

No it's not. Humans and animals have things in common, both can feel pain
for one thing.

I don't happen to
share it.

Neither do I.

If we're prepared to sometimes pass judgement on people for
consuming products whose production harmed humans,

I'm not suggesting we pass judgment on consumers at all.

I don't see why we
shouldn't also sometimes countenance expressing moral disapproval of
buying products whose production harmed nonhuman animals.

Because it's hypocritical, you do it too.

Contrary to
all your paranoid ranting I don't make a habit of telling people "You
are bad",

That's because you're a sneaky sophist, you make your personal judgments
indirect and implicit, that way people can't take offense as easily.

but I do have a moral position which entails that there are
some limits on the extent to which we are permitted to financially
support animal suffering.

So do I.

Now, apparently, because there are these differences between us, and
because I continue to hold these positions despite everything you have
said, I am a hypocrite, a "bonehead", like everyone else "of my
stripe", a "stuffed shirted loser" who is immune to rational argument,
and you apparently feel comfortable with no longer bothering to
rationally engage with me but just finding entertainment in dishing
out abuse. Do you not think there is some possibility that this could
be a bit exaggerated? After all, you yourself used to hold a position
quite similar to mine, while knowing all the facts that I do now. I
think sensible people would agree that intelligent and reasonable
people hold quite a diversity of views about the issues.

I don't hold a position similar to yours, that was all a concoction.

What exactly *is* the reason why I should never pass moral judgement
on anyone for consuming any type of animal product whatsoever?

It's not your job to pass moral judgment on people.

Do you
really maintain that you've given an adequate argument for this claim
of yours, and the fact that I still don't agree with you shows that I
am utterly immune to rational argument and you might as well just
spend your time abusing me?

Pretty much, yes.

I mean, I think it would have to be agreed
that I'm a moderately intelligent person, I've been making a good
faith effort to listen to you, and I haven't been able to discern the
rational foundation for your position yet. I suspect that quite a lot
of other quite intelligent people would feel the same way. Could it be
you need to do a better job of explaining yourself, or perhaps re-
think your position?

I undoubtedly could be more articulate, but it's unlikely it would have any
effect. I don't believe most of what you have just said. You hold a
fundamentally AR-based point of view, that much is certain, which means that
all this talk about setting limits on "financially supporting animal
suffering" is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. You don't agree with animal
exploitation, period.


Yes, you've told me what you think of me, but I really have a hard
time accepting that it's the attitude of a rational person. Must just
be my personal limitations, I guess.

I think so. I think that you think that you are highly rational and that
your arguments are sophisticated and advanced. Perhaps if you didn't have
such a high opinion of yourself you might be able to hear some of the
objections we have to your arguments.


Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

Already done.


Perhaps, but I still genuinely don't know which position of mine you
have in mind when you say I am irrational and immune to rational
argument. Perhaps you could just help out poor little me and specify
in what way I rationally ought to be more like you.

It's not that simple, your sophistry is fairly complex. My opinion has
formed from listening to you say one thing, then when challenged you adjust
or re-word your position to try and deflect the criticism, and on and on. It
goes nowhere.


and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was
a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment
out
of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.

Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that.

Stop beating around the bush liar. You believe that ALL consumption of
animal products is morally wrong, how could you not, you think there
exists
a presumption of "equal consideration".


You really are such an incredible imbecile. You make up stupid
fantasies about me which directly contradict what I have repeatedly
said, and call me a liar for stating my actual position as opposed to
your fantasy of it. You don't understand what I mean by "equal
consideration". That is very well-established. Maybe, as you say, I'm
deluding myself when I think I mean anything by it, but however that
may be I don't mean what you think it ought to mean. So this argument
of yours that I must believe that all consumption of animal products
is morally wrong, when I've repeatedly stated otherwise, is absolutely
idiotic.

OK, fine, which animal products fit into a moral framework that you would
consider moral? How does consuming those products align with "equal
consideration" of those animals? No evasive answers please.

You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?

**** off, sophist. Typical ARA.


So that's how you respond to a polite invitation to rationally support
your position. I guess it all goes to show how immune to rational
argument I must be.

Although you mean to be sarcastic, I think that you are right.


[..]

==========================
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.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.

No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.


Wonderful. I wonder if you could show me where.

I'll repeat them, briefly.

Animals can feel pain, so we should take care to avoid causing them pain as
much as possible.

Animals are social, so we should ensure that they have the companionship of
other animals of their kind.

Animals need space to move around, so we should provide it.

Animals can experience fear and stress, so we should provide them with low
stress environments.

One of the things that animals cannot do, with the possible exception of
higher apes, is experience themselves abstractly as being alive over time,
with a knowledge of mortality. Animals live for the moment. For this reason
we do not harm them psychologically by raising them as food animals. They
don't understand it, and they are not aware of a life in the wild that they
are missing hunting and avoiding predators..


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.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in
no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be.
At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral
structure
is
vague and open to interpretation.

Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

I don't treat anything with kid gloves you sophist prick. I'm saying that
being against "animal products" is a bogus issue born out of some
fuzzy-headed AR college lounge. The reality of collateral deaths reveals
it.


Yeah, well, I think that's a joke. Collateral deaths occur in plant-
based agriculture, therefore all forms of animal agriculture must be
perfectly all right.

Strawman, I didn't say that. See how you twist everything?

It's laughable. How can you seriously assert such
pathetic nonsense? This is the reason why I'm immune to rational
argument, because I don't buy this rubbish? Whatever.

It's not rubbish, you refuse to engage the argument honestly.


Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.

If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
vague and open to interpretation.

No it's not. It means "member of the species Homo sapiens", AND
everything
that that implies.


It doesn't imply very much at all. There are a lot of ways in which
*most* members of the species Homo sapiens are very different from
members of other species. And there are a lot of properties which only
members of the species Homo sapiens have. You once mentioned being
able to solve a differential equation. I can do that and you can't.

I used to be able to and I could learn to again, as could any human who is
not impaired. No non-human could EVER learn it.


If you mean "member of the species Homo sapiens", fine. Then it's your
job to explain why membership in a particular species is morally
relevant, any more than membership in a particular race. If you mean
some of the other properties we've been talking about, you've got to
specify which ones. You're skirting the obligation to be clear about
what you mean by "humanhood". Sometimes you mean one thing, sometimes
another, and you switch from one to the other without inhibition in
order to get your argument to work.

Wrong, it means ALL the potential and characteristics of a human, most of
which most humans have, some of which all humans have.

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.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line
is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws
the
line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a
line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then?

We're talking about harming animals in food production, not pornography,
not
rape, not murder, sophist.


You mean not rape and murder of humans.

That is inherent in the meanings of those words.

All right, so for you it's
just obvious that we are entitled to morally criticize people who buy
products whose production harmed humans,

Says who?

but we are never under any
circumstances entitled to morally criticize anyone for buying any
product which harmed animals in any way whatsoever.

Not if you do it yourself. You may criticize the processes, but if you
support animal-killing processes yourself, for the same kinds of reasons,
then who are you to attack other people? You're not separating the processes
from the people. You're not being reasonable and equitable with other
people.

The day you are
prepared to articulate some rational grounds for holding this view, I
will listen. Until then, I will continue to regard all your rantings
about my supposed hypocrisy as irrational presumptuous garbage.

I have, you refuse to listen.


Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

Touchy aren't you? Sophist.

Not in the least. I did not express any irritation whatsoever, despite
your extraordinary obnoxiousness and effrontery. I engaged with you in
a calm and rational manner. You utterly failed to engage with my
points in any serious way, you just spouted more abuse. I suppose you
can rest content with knowing that reason and decency are on your side
and I'm just a hypocrite and a stuffed shirted loser who is immune to
rational argument and you have no obligation to engage with me
seriously or even treat me with basic courtesy. Keep up the good work,
Dutch.

Thanks, that is precisely how I feel, glad we're clear on that.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:00:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote:

I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting.

I don't read his points, they don't interest me any more.

haw haw haw

But we're not here to talk about him either.

Best not, eh?

He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.

Maybe he says that

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

"irate vegan" wrote in message
...


Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:24:38 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

I understand it rather well, and my being a cripple has
nothing to do with the issue being raised here.

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

As per your own argument against vegetarians, all
food production causes and promotes the collateral
deaths of animals, and any vegetarian who denies
your fact is a lying hypocrite. Your problem here
is that vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths
accrued during the production of their food stuff, but
you deny the collateral deaths associated with the
production of yours. That marks you down as the
hypocrite rather than the vegan, by dint of your own
argument against them. Way to go, dummy.

"irate vegan" wrote
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:00:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote:

I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting.

I don't read his points, they don't interest me any more.

haw haw haw

Meaning what? I stopped reading his posts quite some time ago.

But we're not here to talk about him either.

Best not, eh?

Doesn't really bother me, but it's not my topic of interest. If you're
implying that I won't acknowledge that some pro-meat advocates are nutcases,
then I refer you to my 7-year-long debate with ****wit harrison.


He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.

Maybe he says that

Of course he does, and you know it.

No, I don't know that. Ask him if that's what he is saying.

If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes.

Maybe, ask him if that is his opinion on that scenario. His opinions are
his, not mine.

[..]

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


snip...



Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
=========================
Again, a proven liar. Show where i have made this claim, killer.



If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.
======================
veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion contains
no meat.
Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite...

snip...

On Jul 5, 10:11 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

snip...



Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?

=========================
Again, a proven liar. Show where i have made this claim, killer.


If I've misinterpreted your position, I apologize. I've made a good
faith effort to interpret it correctly. You've certainly stated that
*I* don't care about animals. Perhaps you could tell me who does,
then. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer about what I mean by
"someone in our society". Maybe if someone dropped out of the consumer
society and grew all their own food and made their own electricity,
you'd finally admit that they care about animals to some extent. By
"someone in our society" I meant someone who participates at some
level in the processes in which just about everyone, with virtually no
exceptions, participates. So, what exactly would it take for you to
admit that I care about animals? And can you point me to anyone who
does?


If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

======================
veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion contains
no meat.
Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite...


Well, as far as I'm concerned that's not true. I've given you some
data in the past about how much crop production is required to feed
the United States according to its current eating habits. I think it
is reasonable to conclude that if everyone went vegan that would be a
change for the better, not necessarily the only way to achieve a
substantial change for the better. I don't think it is reasonable to
say that this assertion of mine is "completely unsupported". If you
really want to contest it I think you should make some effort to give
some reason why we should doubt it. On the other hand, if you're just
saying that there may be some non-vegan diets which are at least as
good, on that point we are agreed.
snip...