XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.misc, rec.pets.dogs.behavior
XPost: alt.pets.rabbits

On 4/27/2006 5:51 PM, Rupert wrote:

Leif Erikson, my ethical and intellectual better in every way, wrote:

rupie mccallum, ethical fraud from whom the veneer is
peeling in great sheets, wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote:

The irrelevance of this is so obvious it beggars belief.

You're the one who has insisted, shrilly, that you do
share the "inner life" of a giraffe, rupie.

Nonsense. I have said that it is logically possible that I could come
to have the experiences of a giraffe.

And it's a false statement: you could not, unless you
and the giraffe both were in permanent vegetative
states, and that's not what you meant.

It's not a false statement.

It's a false statement unless you meant both you and the giraffe would
come to be in vegetative states. If you keep forgetting to take your
psycho meds, you might well be in one soon anyway.

As explained, impossible to prove and irrelevant.

Highly relevant: you have been claiming for close to a
dozen posts that you can. You can't.

Your claim is about what is causally possible. My claim is about what >>>>> is logically possible.

Your claim is crap. You logically CANNOT share the
inner life of a giraffe, you moron.

Ipse dixit and false.

No, rupie. Logically, you and the giraffe cannot share
the same inner life unless you and it are essentially
dead, in which case you have no inner life.

Saying it over and over again without any argument

Argument given.

YOU take a prescription drug, regularly, and you'd take
a better one for the same purpose if it were put on the
market.

No. This is one of your delusions.

No. You would take the improved anti-crazy drug were
it to be developed, and you *WILL* take other drugs as
you age.

And of course, you have done in the last decade, just as predicted.

The point is, rupie, you have NO QUALMS about
taking prescription drugs, now or in future, despite
the fact that every one you might conceivably take will
have been tested on animals, with some of the tests
being intentionally lethal. You do not believe in
animal "rights", rupie.

You claim you believe in human rights. I put to you the question
whether you maintain in all seriousness that if you had a vulnerability
to psychosis and the only antipsychotics available had been lethally
tested on humans, you would allow yourself to go psychotic.

Forget about hypotheticals involving me, rupie.

You'd like me to, wouldn't you?

You must, wobbly rupie, because you're the psycho and I'm not. We don't
need any hypotheticals, wobbly rupie - we already have the *actual*
psycho in you, and you take drugs that have been tested on animals.

We're
talking about ACTUALS involving you: actuals that
prove you don't respect animal "rights".

And I'm talking about hypotheticals *and*

Because you're frantically trying to deflect the massive and horrible
moral blame you incur. You fail.

Even if I were violating rights by eating plant foods, it
would still be an improvement to at least eat no animal-derived foods. >>>>

You can't show that on the utilitarian grounds you
appear to embrace, rupie. It's pretty obvious by now
that you're a utilitarian,

False.

No, true. All of your support for your position,
beginning with your belief that sentience is the
relative criterion, is Singerian in its approach. All
of your blabber has been about harm and interests, not
per se violations of rights. You reject the very
distinction Regan feels is essential to make it an
issue of rights rather than interests. You're a
utilitarian.

No.

Yes.

and as such, you now *do*
need to take Fuckwit David Harrison's view that "at
least the animals 'get to experience life'" into
account. In any case, rupie, it isn't only about the
animals killed in the course of producing the foods you
eat. Your "lifestyle" causes animals to die
willy-nilly in the course of all sorts of activities.

But it is still better for me to be vegan than not.

non sequitur

I thought it was precisely the issue we were talking about.

No.

So: either you're a deontologist, and you can't
casually dismiss the collateral deaths you cause; or,
you're a utilitarian, and now you have to take the lost
life experience of the "prevented" animals into
consideration. Which is it, rupie?

Deontologist.

No. See above. Utilitarian, without question. You
can't reject Regan's "subject-of-a-life" crapola and
rely on mere sentience, and be a deontologist.

Then why did you bother to ask?

To stick a jagged broken broom handle - the one Dreck busted over his
dog Merlin's back - up your ass, you stupid psycho.

You'd better stick with the numbers, rupie. I suppose
you can do that, but you can't do philosophy.

I can do philosophy a lot better than you

No.

But I believe there are limits to how far I have to go
out of my way to avoid financially support processes

Not "financially support", rupie, you slimy sleazy
fuck: ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in.

Do you understand me, boy? STOP downplaying it as
"mere" financial support; it is not. It is ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION in processes that you *know* cause
animals to die; active and UNNECESSARY participation.

Active participation - that's settled.

I heap well justified opprobrium on lying,
sanctimonious, HYPOCRITICAL totalitarian-minded scum
who presume to tell the rest of us how we "ought" to
live, when they in their nasty, slothful passivism
don't do anything, not a fucking thing, to abide by the
so-called "principles" they claim to hold.

We *do* do lots of things to abide by our moral beliefs.

You *DON'T*, rupie. ALL you do is refrain from putting
animal parts in your mouth. But that's only symbolic.
In fact, growing your own "death-free" food would, in
the larger scheme of things, also be only symbolic.

So why do you do the one empty symbolic gesture but not
the other? Here's why: because the one is easy, and
the other is hard, and like all the rest of the
"vegans", you're a lazy fuck; you don't like to do
hard, uncomfortable things.

Wobbly rupie has made no progress on this in a decade.

rupie? This requires your attention.

Okay, well to start with they're not empty symbolic gestures.

Yes, they are. They really have no impact at all on
the overall state of treatment of animals. What
they're intended to do is absolve yourself of
responsibility. But you're willing to make the one
easy empty symbolic gesture, and not the other more
difficult but still empty gesture. Why is that, rupie?

As I've explained, I don't believe I'm morally required to do it.

Mere expediency, and you're wrong. You *are* morally required to do it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)