A summary of where things stand in this newsgroup, as far as I can see
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: What's good about welfare-experiencing entities existing, rupie?
Next: Derek the sick cyberstalker, who ironically calls me mentally unwell
From: dh on 3 Sep 2008 10:45 On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:43:34 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote: >Rupert wrote: > >> I would be kind enough to agree that Dutch has not done such a bad job >> of presenting a coherent position clearly. We could ask for more >> clarity about the details, as we could with my position. I cannot >> offer any reasons at the moment why my position should be preferred, >> (or why Dutch's position should be preferred), so I will think the >> matter over more and see what I can come up with, if anything. Dutch >> has likewise recently stated that he has "no critique of my position", >> although he finds what I say to be "unintelligible". > >When I said I had no critique of your position I was >referring specifically to your comments in that one >post. Your position "in general" is unintelligible to >me. That's because considering the very animals we're discussing makes you feel "dirty". I've been pointing out the whole time that that prevents you from being able to consider whether or not things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS. It always has prevented you, and it always will. Rupert isn't good at it, but just the fact that he's given it any thought and appreciation puts him on a higher level than you have ever been on, obviously than you are now which is causing the unintelligence you have for his position, and most likely higher than you ever will be due to your own mental limitations. As is consistently shown: You are incapable of considering the animals being mentally restricted to only considering yourself. >I think that is partly due to your writing style, You can't conceive of taking the animals into consideration regardless of any writing style, type of font, color of text, or anything else.
From: dh on 7 Sep 2008 17:43
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:48:46 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote: >dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:43:34 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote: >> >>> Rupert wrote: >>> >>>> I would be kind enough to agree that Dutch has not done such a bad job >>>> of presenting a coherent position clearly. We could ask for more >>>> clarity about the details, as we could with my position. I cannot >>>> offer any reasons at the moment why my position should be preferred, >>>> (or why Dutch's position should be preferred), so I will think the >>>> matter over more and see what I can come up with, if anything. Dutch >>>> has likewise recently stated that he has "no critique of my position", >>>> although he finds what I say to be "unintelligible". >>> When I said I had no critique of your position I was >>> referring specifically to your comments in that one >>> post. Your position "in general" is unintelligible to >>> me. >> >> That's because considering the very animals we're discussing >> makes you feel "dirty". > >That's horseshit, considering the animals is the >essence of AW. Which of course is one reason I continue pointing out that you eliminationists necessarily work AGAINST AW. Duh! >What makes me feel dirty is the thought >of putting a price on the head of an animal then as I >eat it chalking it up as a moral victory that the >animal "got to experience life", i.e. the Logic of the >Larder. In all of human endeavor there isn't a clearer >example of shabby, circular sophism. > >> I've been pointing out the whole time that >> that prevents you from being able to consider whether or not things >> are cruel TO THE ANIMALS. > >Of course considerations of cruelty There's a lot more to consider than that, but since your selfishness is so completely pure it prevents you from considering anything that works against the elimination objective. >apply TO THE ANIMALS, who else? > >> It always has prevented you, and it >> always will. Rupert isn't good at it, but just the fact that he's given >> it any thought and appreciation puts him on a higher level than >> you have ever been on, obviously than you are now which is >> causing the unintelligence you have for his position, and most >> likely higher than you ever will be due to your own mental limitations. >> As is consistently shown: You are incapable of considering the >> animals being mentally restricted to only considering yourself. > >The only consideration I decline You can't consider anything other than yourSELF. >is the one I >mentioned above, for a reason, it's idiotic You only think it's idiotic because it's about billions of creatures, but not about YOU. >and sick. Your selfishness is so pure that it's a form of mental illness, and any consideration of beings other than YOURSELF makes you feel like you're cheating on yourself or something, then you get all confused and end up feeling sick. Your head's what's fucked up, not consideration for other beings. >>> I think that is partly due to your writing style, >> >> You can't conceive of taking the animals into consideration >> regardless of any writing style, type of font, color of text, or >> anything else. > >I can conceive of The Logic of the Larder, No, not really. If you could, then you would view your incredibly extreme and absolutely pure selfishness for what it is. You can't though. LOL...of course we know you can't say what ELSE you think it is either. You damn sure can't say that refusing to consider the animals is a respectable thing to do in any way, so you can't comprehend appreciation for their lives nor can you explain how you think it's ethically superior to refuse taking them into consideration. As I've always pointed out: You maniacally oppose the AW approach and all considerations that go along with it such as consideration of the animals, yet you have NOTHING in any way superior to suggest instead. In fact you have nothing at all to suggest instead. >I'm just not sick enough to subscribe to it. The purity of your selfishness causes the mental illness which prevents you from being able to take the animals' lives into consideration. |