Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"irate vegan" wrote in message ... 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. =============== Nope. Again, I suggest you learn english, killer... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:58:43 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote in message ... 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. =============== Nope. Again, I suggest you learn english, killer... Great comeback, nebbish. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. [..] |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|