Prev: Spain is to become the first country to extend legal rights toapes
Next: Getting Past the 'Protein Myth' That Keeps People from QuittingMeat and Dairy (by Kathy Freston)
From: Rupert on 5 Jul 2008 23:57
On Jul 6, 7:04 am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 5:43 am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> >> Dutch hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> >> Thunder crashed, Dutch laughed madly, then wrote:
>
> >> >Rupert wrote:
> >> >> Veganism is a perfectly reasonable strategy
> >> >> for reducing suffering,
>
> >> >It may be a fairly effective strategy but "perfectly reasonable" would
> >> >be an overstatement.
>
> >> Existence is suffering.  There is no "fairly effective strategy" to
> >> reduce suffering.
>
> >That's stupid. If a few million people go vegan and fewer factory-
> >farms are built and fewer animals are brought into existence to lead
> >horrible lives, then something has been done. If Henry Spira managed
> >to get major cosmetics companies to develop an alternative to the
> >Draize test, then something has been done. If a few million dollars
> >are donated to UNICEF and a few thousand under-five deaths are
> >prevented, then something has been done. Preventing an under-five
> >death, or getting a company to stop dripping cosmetics into the eyes
> >of millions of conscious rabbits and holding them in shackles for two
> >weeks while they go blind, is not a trivial accomplishment.
>
> >You might as well say "Why should I bother to get out of bed in the
> >morning?"
>
> >If you want to reduce suffering, there's plenty you can do. It may not
> >be high on your list of priorities, that's fine. But you shouldn't
> >pretend it's not one of your options.
>
> What are you going to do for those poor animals in the wild, torn to
> shreds in terror and agony by wild predators, dying of horrible
> diseases and starvation?
>

That's a good question, we should look into what we can do for them.
I'm afraid I have to specialise a bit when it comes to the problems I
can address.

I've made some effort to reduce the extent to which I financially
support processes that cause harm, and to encourage awareness in other
members of the public of some of the animal suffering that goes on and
what they can do about it. I've written letters to various people at
various levels of government about various things. I've volunteered my
time and effort to Animal Liberation NSW to help them with various
things. Also UNICEF. And I've joined a new organisation called "Giving
What We Can" set up by Toby Ord and I intend to make a pledge to
donate everything I earn above a certain amount to charities which I
believe effectively reduce suffering in the developing world (we'll be
doing research to see which charities are most effectively). I'm
making career choices based on a desire to improve my capacity to
donate money, I'd really rather get paid to do research in maths and
philosophy but I'll try to get into mathematical finance instead. At
the moment I'm teaching maths and trying to finish a Ph.D..

Ball says it's all just tokenism. Well, maybe it is. I don't know, I
hope I manage to achieve a little bit with my life. If not then at
least I'll have had fun trying.

There's a limit to what I can achieve but I'm making some effort.

> If you can find alternatives to existing ways of handling animals by
> humans that are less painful to the animal, by all means go for it.
>
> And if you personally want to try to live a Buddhist monk's life by
> refusing to cause any suffering to any sentient being, I respect that
> to some extent.  I live by that standard, to some extent, because I
> think it's the only really logical basis for morality.
>

Okay. Well, when there's a cockroach in my flat I trap him in a
container and take him outside. It's a bit hard not to financially
support processes that cause suffering, because, as they'll always
point out to you round here, plant-based agriculture harms animals and
electricity production kills trillions of fish. Also unfortunately I
have to take an antipsychotic medication that was tested on animals.

Quite interested in Buddhism, I'd like to find out more about it.

> But thinking you are going to "reduce suffering" on a global level by
> going vegan is getting a little absurd to me.  Things live and die and
> in doing so they suffer.  Reducing suffering for all sentient beings
> is an idea that comes from Buddhism, but westerners want to pick and
> choose the bits of Buddhism they like, so what you end up with suits
> your lifestyle and makes you feel more moral but doesn't hold together
> as a coherent meaningful whole.
>

Well, my charitable donations definitely reduce suffering. As far as
trying to reduce the amount of harm caused in order to produce your
food, I guess that's more a feeling of "I'd rather my money didn't
support processes like these". If all the population of Australia went
vegan, one by one, every so often there would be a "threshold vegan"
and his or her decision would cause a significant reduction in
suffering. I might be one of the "threshold vegans", you never know.

You're saying I'm not making it part of a coherent meaningful whole,
well, I'm making an effort, I welcome suggestions for what more I
could do...

> You personally going vegan might very well reduce some suffering of
> some animals.  Personally I think the degree of it is very tiny, not
> only on the scale of humans eating meat in general but on a world-wide
> scale.  Doing it to make yourself feel better about yourself, or to
> give yourself a better karma if you believe in that kind of thing,
> makes perfect sense.
>
> But thinking you have a "strategy to reduce suffering" by not
> personally eating meat is ridiculous.
>

I don't think so, no.

> Which is why, inevitably, veganism as a way of "reducing suffering",
> or going fur-free, or whatever, becomes something that everybody
> should do.  That's why there are protests.  Because it only makes
> SENSE if it's global.  Then, I guess, you will "reduce suffering" in a
> largish way.
>
> I still think it would not be very substantial,

Of course it would be substantial. Even saving just one animal from
having a horrible life is worth doing.

> because I think
> suffering is inherent in life,

Irrelevant.

> but imposing that morality on others is
> the logical extension of the idea of a "strategy to reduce suffering".
>

Well, I advocate it to others, I don't impose it. I would be in favour
of some forms of agriculture being banned, but who wouldn't?

> It's not that I'm criticising veganism as a personal moral choice,
> although I think it's illogical except as, as I said, a way of making
> yourself feel better about yourself, or of improving karma if you
> believe in karma. *
>

Well, for me it's about doing your bit to make the world better, and I
obviously haven't convinced you on that one.

> But it's inherent in the idea of is as a "strategy" that it is not
> about a personal choice.  That there are ANY kind of protestors proves
> that.  That there is even a hint of activism or even moral lecturing
> proves that.
>

There's nothing wrong with talking to others about the reasoning that
leads you to your personal choices. One of the things I've done is
give a talk to some students who were about to do animal research
projects about animal rights philosophy. The Director of Laboratory
Services at the University of Sydney actually wanted me to do that and
indeed paid me, he thought it was important for them to hear about it.

There's also nothing wrong with trying to stop people from being cruel
to animals.

> And it is really just a kind of lifestyle choice.  You can go vegan,
> and say to yourself at night, "I have not inflicted any suffering on
> any animal",

Which is not true, as is always pointed out here...

> and still eat well enough.
>

Indeed you can.

> How far would you really take it though?  There were monks in the
> middle ages who refused to swat fleas off of them, because fleas are
> God's creatures, and it was wrong to deny them their meal (which does
> cause them suffering).  Do you take it that far?  Those poor fleas are
> suffering from hunger.  If you want to completely reduce suffering,
> it's not enough to just not kill a flea.  There are fleas out there
> starving.  You should seek them out and bring them into your home.
> And every wild animal out there suffering, you should bring them home,
> make them beds, and feed them.  And what about people?  You are, of
> course, as part of your "strategy to reduce suffering", actively
> seeking out the winos in the gutters and bringing them home to eat and
> sleep in a nice warm bed?  And alchohol withdrawals are a form of
> suffering, you should really get them nice and liqoured up while
> you're at it.
>

I don't see your point here. Everyone can always ask themselves the
question "Why this far, and not further?", this applies to every
position. I've told you what I do and what I plan to do. There's a
limit to what I can do, I've made some effort. I'd consider doing
volunteer work for the Salvation Army helping homeless alcoholics,
yes, but it may be at least as good a use of my time to work as a
quantitative analyst for a bank and donate the money I make to UNICEF.

> That is, if your "strategy to reduce suffering" is real, and not just
> a convenient lifestyle choice that makes you feel good about yourself.
>

Well, Ball says it's the latter, he's entitled to that view. Maybe it
is, anyway at least there's a chance I may be able to help a few
people and animals in my life, which I suppose is better than
nothing...

> * Or as seeing that other living thing and thinking "what's inside
> there is the same as me";  which, personally, I think is a profound
> realization.
>
> --
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialisthttp://joecosby.com/
> "Am I retarded or am I just overjoyed?"
>
>  - Green Day
>
> :: Currently listening to Fantasia para un gentilhombre - IV: Canario, 1954, by Rodrigo/Manuel Barrueco, from "Rodrigo - Concertos - Songs With Guitar"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Zapanaz on 6 Jul 2008 13:39
Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:

>On Jul 6, 7:04�am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:

>> But thinking you are going to "reduce suffering" on a global level by
>> going vegan is getting a little absurd to me.

>
>Well, my charitable donations definitely reduce suffering.

I said "on a global level". You aren't paying attention to what I'm
actually saying.


>> because I think
>> suffering is inherent in life,
>
>Irrelevant.
>

My point is, saying you have an "overall strategy to reduce suffering"
is absurd because suffering is inherent in life. It's perfectly clear
in the context of what I was saying, but replying piecemeal, paragraph
by paragraph, you've evaded the point. Which is typical on usenet.

>> but imposing that morality on others is
>> the logical extension of the idea of a "strategy to reduce suffering".
>>
>
>Well, I advocate it to others, I don't impose it. I would be in favour
>of some forms of agriculture being banned, but who wouldn't?
>

This is another good example of responding piecemeal and evading the
point. I was talking about imposing veganism on others, now you are
talking about banning forms of agriculture. The one is completely
unrelated to the other, but you are just going through, thinking of
some response to each paragraph, thinking that constitutes a
substantial reply. But here you are talking about something
completely out of left field and unrelated to anything, and nowhere
are you really replying to any of what I'm actually saying.

***

And so on.

I've pointed out three times now where your responses are completely
disconnected from what I'm talking about. I've read all of what you
say following, but all of it is likewise. If you want to acknowledge
that those first three unrelated responses are unrelated and want to
have a conversation, let me konw. I don't see a lot of point in
explaining another twenty cases of the same thing. As I say, this is
very common on usenet when somebody's position is threatened.

I would suggest you print out what I wrote, sit somewhere quiet, and
read it through in its entirety, without composing any response until
you're through. I've done the same thing you're doing; responding
paragraph-by-paragraph to a usenet post, then looked back later and
realized I had missed the point. The only way to avoid that is to
read carefully for context.



--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Fool me once, Shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, you must work for the government.

:: Currently listening to Dream On, 1973, by Aerosmith
From: Steve Thompson on 6 Jul 2008 16:34
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:58:23PM -0700, Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:42�am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> > Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> > Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:
> >
> > >Most animals in modern farms do not have decent lives, and this is a
> > >consequence of the mindset which says that it is okay for us to use
> > >animals for our own ends.
> >
> > No, it is purely a result of the mindset of the animals themselves.
> > Do they meditate? �Do they pursue any form of self-improvement
> > whatsoever? �No, they do not. �They could be taking college courses,
> > learning art history, listening to music. �But do they even make the
> > EFFORT? �Hell no. �And you want me to feel sorry for them.
> >
> > --
> > Zapanaz
> > International Satanic Conspiracy
> > Customer Support Specialisthttp://joecosby.com/
> > Religion is not meant to be entertaining...if that is what a person is
> > looking for in a religion, they might as well be atheist.
> > - Anon
> >
> > :: Currently listening to Concierto de Aranjuez - 1. Allegro con spirito, 1939, by Rodrigo, from "Concierto de Aranjuez/Fantasia para un gentilhombre"
>
> I read a book by Victor Frankl called "Man's Search for Meaning". He
> discussed his experiences at Auschwitz and explained how they led him
> to develop his own school of psychotherapy. Now there was someone who
> approached his situation in a constructive way instead of whingeing
> about it.

Jes lookit all this passive-mode English. Sheesh, what a waste of
valuable electrons.

Joe there is more guilty than any of those he criticizes when he
whines about the 'animals' and their attitudes regarding education.
Do you see Mr. Cosby pursuing any sort of personal education program?
No, or if you look closely all he can be said to do is practising the
art of propoganda for fascist-state political goals. I'm sure it pays
the bills, but the hypocricy is blatant.

Good ol' Joe is just another chickenshit neo-nazi shill lining up for
his paycheque as he takes a stand along the path of least resistance.


Regards,

Steve

--
Simon says stay calm. Everything is under control. Move along.

[Dumbfuck Threat Level: PINK-BLACK]

From: Rupert on 6 Jul 2008 20:29
On Jul 7, 1:39 am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:
>
> >On Jul 6, 7:04 am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> >> But thinking you are going to "reduce suffering" on a global level by
> >> going vegan is getting a little absurd to me.
>
> >Well, my charitable donations definitely reduce suffering.
>
> I said "on a global level".  You aren't paying attention to what I'm
> actually saying.
>

Well, look, of course an individual cannot reduce suffering on a
global level, I apologise if I ever said anything to give you the
impression that I was unaware of this piece of basic common sense. I'm
really not clear at this stage why this is a problem for my position.

I'll have another go at replying to your post, but really, you have to
give me credit for making a good faith effort to engage with your
argument. You're insinuating that I'm trying to be evasive, why would
I do that? Why would I feel "threatened" by what you're saying?

I'll look your post over again later today.
From: Rupert on 6 Jul 2008 20:38
On Jul 7, 4:47 am, "Steve Thompson"<steve49...(a)yahoo.ca.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 04:57:40PM -0700, Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 6:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > > >> Rupert, slavishly adoring of a third-rate philosophy prof who spent his
> > > >> career at an academic backwater, uncritically quoted the third-rate prof
> > > >> and blabbered:
>
> > > > It would be widely agreed in the academic community
>
> > > No.
>
> > > > that the author of
> > > > "The Case for Animal Rights" is not a "third-rate prof
>
> > > Regan spent his entire career at an academic backwater, and if not for
> > > having staked out an extreme position on a controversial topic, his
> > > entire career would have gone unnoticed in the academic world.
>
> > There's more to it than just taking an extreme position on a
> > controversial topic, it's generally agreed that "The Case for Animal
> > Rights" is an interesting and well-argued book, with interesting
> > remarks about moral methodology, nonhuman animal psychology, and so
> > forth. He takes positions on topics other than our treatment of
> > nonhuman animals and those are discussed as well.
>
> > Anyway, you think John Rawls should have been thrown out of academia
> > (despite not having read any of his books all the way through), and he
> > was the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth
> > century, so you obviously don't think much of the standards of
> > scholarship that currently prevail in moral and political philosophy
> > anyway, so in that case the question of how highly Regan's work is
> > regarded by academics is not really all that important.
>
> What's really not all that important is reading your impotent drivel.

Fair enough, well, maybe you should find something better to do with
your time.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Spain is to become the first country to extend legal rights toapes
Next: Getting Past the 'Protein Myth' That Keeps People from QuittingMeat and Dairy (by Kathy Freston)