Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths
in [Vegetarian]
|
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: Zapanaz on 6 Jul 2008 22:32 Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly; Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote: >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? No I'm saying explicitly that you are going through and replying paragraph by paragraph without grasping the meaning of what I'm saying. > >I'll look your post over again later today. -- Zapanaz International Satanic Conspiracy Customer Support Specialist http://joecosby.com/ The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler :: Currently listening to Op. 74 in E flat: IV. Allegretto con Variazioni, 1809, by Beethoven, from "Beethoven: Quartets - 2"
From: Rupert on 6 Jul 2008 22:38 On Jul 6, 7:32 pm, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote: > Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly; > Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote: > > > > > > >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? > > No I'm saying explicitly that you are going through and replying > paragraph by paragraph without grasping the meaning of what I'm > saying. > I see. Well, I'm pretty thick, you know, it's one of my problems. I'll give it another go and see if I can understand you better.
From: Rupert on 7 Jul 2008 02:50 On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote: > 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), > > I think Rawls has an undeservedly bloated reputation in academia because > his positions are left-wing, and academia is undeniably leftist. Rawls > himself, and his acolytes, unreservedly believe in redistribution of > goods and resources to achieve a nebulous sort of "justice" that Rawls > has invented. You yourself, rupie, have cited someone else - seems to > me his name is Nozick or something like that - who critiques Rawls from > a libertarian, anti-collectivist perspective. Sorry, rupie - you, being > youthful, have an advantage on me. Rawls and his critics gained their > academic reputations largely after I left the academic world. > > Rawls is a collectivist - you claim to be an anarchist/libertarian, > although you plainly are not - and I don't have much truck with > collectivism.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You might find this interesting: http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=4335 Sure, you're entitled to take that view about Rawls, but what's it based on? How much of his stuff have you read? You've got no basis for saying I'm not an anarchist, and it's completely indefensible to say that immigration restrictions are consistent with libertarian principles. You're saying it's like the right of a homeowner to decide who enters his home. You don't own a share in a corporation that owns all the land in America, and if you do then that would render libertarianism completely meaningless. I've explained that plenty of times, it's unanswerable.
From: Rupert on 7 Jul 2008 03:04 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: > >> 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. > How is banning certain forms of agriculture completely unrelated to imposing veganism on others? Not following you. What do you have in mind when you talking about imposing veganism on others? Are you thinking about legislation of some kind? Or walking into restaurants and confiscating people's food? Just spell out for me a bit more what you're talking about, if you wouldn't mind.
From: David on 9 Jul 2008 08:27
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 3, 9:53�pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze <dragonbl...(a)apexmail.com> wrote: >> >On 1 Jul, 18:54, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> These quotations from David Harrison are certainly very interesting. >> >> Engaging in an activity which is like to cause injury or death to >> >> humans, or for that matter any sentient being, is not an ethically >> >> justifiable way to behave and it's a very poor strategy for doing >> >> something about animal suffering, which one would hope is the ultimate >> >> goal. I will not donate money to PETA because I do not wish my money >> >> to end up in the hands of the Earth Liberation Front and many of us in >> >> the animal protection movement frequently have cause to feel annoyed >> >> with PETA as one of the more publicly visible organisations in the >> >> animal protection movement who identify themselves as "animal rights". >> >> Your typical animal rights activist doesn't really fit the image you >> >> would normally have of a terrorist. >> >> >PETA's track record in animal welfare is abysmal - since they think >> >pets should not exist due to their belief in "animal rights" - and >> >there was a scandal with PETA killing than 90 percent of the adoptable >> >animals in its care during 2007. Which means the sadistic PETA freaks >> >will not get a single penny off me - EVER!http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ >> >> > Now, I'm an omnivore, and very interested in animal welfare >> >(something quite a few vegans deny is possible). >> >> � � It's people like yourself who contribute to better lives for livestock >> with your lifestyle. Vegans do NOT. It's people like yourself who care >> about those animals' lives, NOT vegans. They have no argument >> against your interest in AW. Their elimination objective works against >> providing decent lives. >> > >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. It's because the lack of caring is so universal that some animals are living in conditions which condemn them to a life of negative value. >Veganism is a perfectly reasonable strategy >for reducing suffering, and there is no basis for saying that vegans >don't "care" as much as conscientious omnivores, Yes there is, and I believe you could probably present at least one reason to back up the notion. Maybe you could present a bunch of them. If you're hoping to write a book, and be open, honest, and present an honest realistic portrayal of the big picture, then you should certainly include them. Acknowledging them now would be excellent practice and experience for you. >that is idiotic. I feel confident that you know much better than that. Don't let Goo rub off on you any more than you can help it man. >There is no reason why providing "decent" lives for livestock is >better than allowing wild animals to fill up the ecological niche. It seems we've been here before. When you think it all the way through: Whatever reason we grow crops, wildlife including insects are not welcome in the crop fields, so they're poisoned etc. The idea is that no animals live there, not that wildlife live there. You people act like it would take less land, but since animal products have so much more nutritional value it's likely to take as much or more land to grow veggies in order to make it up. Animal by-products are such a part of our lives, that there's no way to calculate what the effects of eliminating them would be. And for me there's the fact that we could provide decent lives of positive value for billions of animals, and do. Even if no one else can appreciate it, I must. |