• Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?

    From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 17:02:47 2016
    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

    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.

    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,


    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



    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.


    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?


    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


    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

    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)