Prev: Evolution's twist - USC study finds meat-tolerant genes offset high cholesterol and disease
Next: Flatulence-producing foods
From: Derek on 22 Aug 2008 06:46
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
[..]
>> > There has been no change of position.
>>
>> There most certainly has been: self-righteous "ara" to <chortle>
>> meat-eater accommodating "new welfarist".
>
>As explained many times, there has been no change in position. I have
>always made it clear that my position is not a strict rights one.
>
>If I had made a change in position it would be possible for you to
>identify a statement that I believed in in the past, but no longer
>believe in, or a statement that I did not believe in in the past, but
>believe in now. You have not been able to do that and you will not be
>able to do that.

You came here pretending to be an animal rights
advocate demanding the same "equal consideration"
for animals that we give ourselves, and while Rudy
and others have tried to tell you that you're an
animal welfarist and NOT an animal rights
advocate, you've lied and lied again to continue
your charade as an animal rights advocate. Look
at the example below this sentence where Rudy
agrees with fuckwit Harrison on this issue of your
welfarism and how you try to reject that 'welfare'
label.

[start Rupert]
> > > > I want more people to support the AR cause
> > >
> > > Why? "ar" is a pernicious dogma of illogic that leads to
> > > totalitarianism. Why do you want people to support it?
> >
> > I don't agree that it's illogical and leads to totalitarianism. I think
> > it's a just cause. That's why I want people to support it.
>
> You don't have a very well thought out basis of your support for it.
> In fact, Fuckwit is largely right about one thing: what you really
> support is some form of animal *welfare*, not animal rights.

What's your evidence for that?
Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/67jqxs

and

"I believe that animals have the right not to be
killed unnecessarily"
Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/63dugz

You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.

"... it would not be that misleading to refer to
myself as an "animal rights advocate".
Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o

but

"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj

and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies

"I have never made any misleading statements about
what I believe."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf

You're all over the place, you pathetic, lying clown,
and when asked to clarify your ever-changing
position you whiff off instead and tell your enquirers
that it is they and not you who is confused.
From: Rupert on 22 Aug 2008 23:11
On Aug 23, 1:43 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > My girlfriend does not eat dogs, racist buffoon. If she did it would
> > be morally wrong.
>
> What if they were raised in a humane manner, provided
> with a "decent life"? According to what moral
> principle would that be worse than the animal
> husbandry you grudgingly acknowledge as "probably no
> worse wrt animal suffering than some commercial plant
> products"?

If her diet genuinely caused no more harm than mine, obviously I would
not have a non-hypocritical basis for criticising her. The point is
that raising animals for food means you generally need more crop
inputs per unit of food. Cows can sometimes be an exception, I'm not
sure dogs would be.
From: Rupert on 22 Aug 2008 23:43
On Aug 22, 6:46 pm, Derek <usenet.em...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> [..]
> >> > There has been no change of position.
>
> >> There most certainly has been: self-righteous "ara" to <chortle>
> >> meat-eater accommodating "new welfarist".
>
> >As explained many times, there has been no change in position. I have
> >always made it clear that my position is not a strict rights one.
>
> >If I had made a change in position it would be possible for you to
> >identify a statement that I believed in in the past, but no longer
> >believe in, or a statement that I did not believe in in the past, but
> >believe in now. You have not been able to do that and you will not be
> >able to do that.
>
> You came here pretending to be an animal rights
> advocate demanding the same "equal consideration"
> for animals that we give ourselves, and while Rudy
> and others have tried to tell you that you're an
> animal welfarist and NOT an animal rights
> advocate, you've lied and lied again to continue
> your charade as an animal rights advocate. Look
> at the example below this sentence where Rudy
> agrees with fuckwit Harrison on this issue of your
> welfarism and how you try to reject that 'welfare'
> label.
>

I expressed support for DeGrazia's notion of "equal consideration",
yes, still do.

> [start Rupert]
> > > > > I want more people to support the AR cause

Which is correct.

> > > >
> > > > Why? "ar" is a pernicious dogma of illogic that leads to
> > > > totalitarianism. Why do you want people to support it?
> > >
> > > I don't agree that it's illogical and leads to totalitarianism. I think
> > > it's a just cause. That's why I want people to support it.
> >

How long ago was that one?

The above is not a misleading statement. I'm in favour of the
abolition of the property status of animals. I took reasonable care to
give any caveats there may be on other occasions.

> > You don't have a very well thought out basis of your support for it.

That's true, actually. Neither do you. No-one does. No-one has a well-
thought-out stance on how we should treat nonhuman animals. It's an
area where a satisfactory approach hasn't be found.

But if you want to show me how it's done, feel free to expound on your
own views. Hopefully this thing of being a vegan and an animal rights
advocate has something to do with the desire to help animals.
Persuading others of the merits of your views should be a good way to
help animals. I am happy to listen.

> > In fact, Fuckwit is largely right about one thing: what you really
> > support is some form of animal *welfare*, not animal rights.
>
> What's your evidence for that?
> Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/67jqxs
>
> and
>
> "I believe that animals have the right not to be
> killed unnecessarily"
> Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/63dugz
>

True. I do.

> You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
> even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
> rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
>
> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
> Rupert 7 August 2008http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
> but
>
> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> might be a bit misleading."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>

Yes, that's right. These statements are consistent.

> and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
>
> "I have never made any misleading statements about
> what I believe."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
>

This is correct.

> You're all over the place, you pathetic, lying clown,
> and when asked to clarify your ever-changing
> position you whiff off instead and tell your enquirers
> that it is they and not you who is confused.

You haven't identified a lie I've told or a change in my position, and
you most certainly are deeply confused about my position despite my
careful recent efforts to explain it.

Look, Derek. I am happy to put aside our differences and try to resume
civilized conversation. If you are prepared to give me credit for
arguing in good faith, I am happy to try once again to explain what I
do actually believe. You can say I'm deeply confused and stupid if you
want, you just have to give me credit for arguing in good faith and
making a good faith attempt to represent my position correctly. That's
all I ask. Perfectly reasonable.

Or, if you're interested in trying to help animals and you think
there's some chance I might be brought round to your way of thinking,
I am happy to listen to what your views are.

Our current exchanges are not especially intellectually illuminating
and they are certainly not helping any animals. I'm not a pathetic,
lying clown, I'm an intelligent person who's thought a fair bit about
the issue of how we should treat animals, and come up with some
tentative views, which I've made a good faith effort to expound
clearly and honestly on this board over the years. I certainly grant
that more should be done by way of providing my views with a
foundation, and I plan to work on that someday, but I am busy with
holding down a job, writing a thesis, and doing volunteer work for a
philanthropic organisation. You've formed a low opinion of me, well,
that's your perogative. You think you're doing a good job of pointing
out my shortcomings and you're content to continue to do that, well, I
can't stop you, can I, but don't you think you should aim a bit
higher? Strive for productive discussion?

Decent people do not express agreement with statements about "slant
bitches" without challenging the racist slur, and they do not mock
people for having a mental health history. I realise I myself have
made jokes to Ball along those lines, if you think that Ball is
genuinely mentally unwell and that I should stop I'll take that into
serious consideration.

I think you should give some thought to lifting your game. For the
animals, if for no better reason.

Well, I gave it another go...
From: Rupert on 23 Aug 2008 02:21
On Aug 23, 3:43 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 1:43 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>> My girlfriend does not eat dogs, racist buffoon. If she did it would
> >>> be morally wrong.
> >> What if they were raised in a humane manner, provided
> >> with a "decent life"? According to what moral
> >> principle would that be worse than the animal
> >> husbandry you grudgingly acknowledge as "probably no
> >> worse wrt animal suffering than some commercial plant
> >> products"?
>
> > If her diet genuinely caused no more harm than mine, obviously I would
> > not have a non-hypocritical basis for criticising her. The point is
> > that raising animals for food means you generally need more crop
> > inputs per unit of food. Cows can sometimes be an exception, I'm not
> > sure dogs would be.
>
> That's quite an elaborate tap dance compared to your
> categorical statement above where you appear to say
> that eating dogs is morally wrong, period. Can you see
> why people perceive that you change your position when
> pressed?

Changing your position is legitimate as long as you announce it.

I accept your criticism that I ought to have taken more trouble to
present a nuanced position on that occasion and make my statement in a
qualified form.

I believe that I have put forward a position over the last six years
which has remained relatively constant in broad outline and that I
have taken reasonable care to be honest and forthright in presenting
my position and to announce when I make changes in it. Certainly this
idea that Ball and Derek have that I have suddenly become a disciple
of David Harrison is completely crazy; I hope that I have made that
reasonably clear to people of normal intelligence in recent posts. If
I have been remiss over the years in distancing myself from positions
that are different from mine and have been insufficiently clear about
what the differences are, I can only apologise and try to do better in
the future.

In any event I am making a major change in my position now; I am
moving to a stance of neutrality. I'm saying this is all too hard for
me, I'm doing a rethink, I'll refrain from saying that any particular
conduct is morally wrong. Anyone is welcome to expound their position
to me and try to bring me round to their point of view, in the
meantime I will not take a position in animal ethics, although I will
continue to be vegan and engage in certain forms of activism. I may
still make posts if I feel that I have something interesting to say.

So for the time being I am neutral; I do not have a position.
From: Derek on 23 Aug 2008 06:59
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 22, 6:46 pm, Derek <usenet.em...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> >> Rupert wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> > There has been no change of position.
>>
>> >> There most certainly has been: self-righteous "ara" to <chortle>
>> >> meat-eater accommodating "new welfarist".
>>
>> >As explained many times, there has been no change in position. I have
>> >always made it clear that my position is not a strict rights one.
>>
>> >If I had made a change in position it would be possible for you to
>> >identify a statement that I believed in in the past, but no longer
>> >believe in, or a statement that I did not believe in in the past, but
>> >believe in now. You have not been able to do that and you will not be
>> >able to do that.
>>
>> You came here pretending to be an animal rights
>> advocate demanding the same "equal consideration"
>> for animals that we give ourselves, and while Rudy
>> and others have tried to tell you that you're an
>> animal welfarist and NOT an animal rights
>> advocate, you've lied and lied again to continue
>> your charade as an animal rights advocate. Look
>> at the example below this sentence where Rudy
>> agrees with fuckwit Harrison on this issue of your
>> welfarism and how you try to reject that 'welfare'
>> label.
>>
>> [start Rupert]
>> > > > > I want more people to support the AR cause
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Why? "ar" is a pernicious dogma of illogic that leads to
>> > > > totalitarianism. Why do you want people to support it?
>> > >
>> > > I don't agree that it's illogical and leads to totalitarianism. I think
>> > > it's a just cause. That's why I want people to support it.
>> >
>> > You don't have a very well thought out basis of your support for it.
>> > In fact, Fuckwit is largely right about one thing: what you really
>> > support is some form of animal *welfare*, not animal rights.
>>
>> What's your evidence for that?
>> Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/67jqxs
>>
>> and
>>
>> "I believe that animals have the right not to be
>> killed unnecessarily"
>> Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/63dugz
>>
>> You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
>> even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
>> rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
>>
>> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
>> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
>> Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>>
>> but
>>
>> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
>> might be a bit misleading."
>> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>>
>> and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
>>
>> "I have never made any misleading statements about
>> what I believe."
>> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
>>
>> You're all over the place, you pathetic, lying clown,
>> and when asked to clarify your ever-changing
>> position you whiff off instead and tell your enquirers
>> that it is they and not you who is confused.
>
>You haven't identified a lie I've told or a change in my position

Of course I have, you psychotic liar, and I've removed your
deliberate interruptions in my reply here to show it again.
You asked for example quotes that show a change in your
position by writing,

"If I had made a change in position it would be possible for
you to identify a statement that I believed in in the past, but
no longer believe in, or a statement that I did not believe in
in the past, but believe in now. You have not been able to
do that and you will not be able to do that."

And when given those examples to show your change in
position you deliberately interrupt them to continue giving
the impression that there hasn't been a change in your
position. Like I've been saying all along, rupie, you don't
want to argue in good faith and you don't have the guts to
acknowledge that you've been caught out by your own
quotes.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Evolution's twist - USC study finds meat-tolerant genes offset high cholesterol and disease
Next: Flatulence-producing foods