If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
David Harrison Vs Jonathan Ball - the verdict
On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:46:51 +0100, Derek wrote:
.. Jonathan Ball has hounded and bullied David Harrison for more than 15 years here on a.a.e.v. over his non-utilitarian variant on the subject of bringing about a better outcome for farm animals by continuing to bring them by the billions into existence. It must be noted that, to his credit, Harrison came to this variant of the argument for more farm animals entirely independently without any knowledge of utilitarianism and has managed to hold off Jonathan without casting it in a utilitarian framework despite being advised by myself, Rupert and many others to do so. Now Jon, who claims to have a Ph.D. in economics, UCLA, struts around making a big deal of the fact that he is smarter than Harrison at every given opportunity. He belittles him all the while while trying elevate himself above him and, surprisingly, even for someone as childish as he is for gaining a great deal of enjoyment by calling Harrison playground names such as Fu and Goo, he often goes out of his way to demoralise him further by claiming he can type faster than he can. How sad is that? Well, it gets worse. Despite Jon’s best efforts and the thousands of hours he’s put into trying to defeat Harrison, he’s failed, spectacularly, even while he’s “been aided by David's refusal to cast his position in a more traditional utilitarian framework.” Like how, and what would be the advantage? As long ago as 2001, 14 years ago, Bob Farrell joined the chorus shouted by every serious participant here that, despite Jon’s best and loudest demands, he hasn’t managed to defeat Harrison, and that any degree of success he may have had stems from the fact that Harrison has been presenting his argument so poorly. Some domestic animals have decent lives of positive value and some don't. The fact remains the same regardless of how well or poorly it's presented. [start – Bob Farrell] Though Jonathan won't likely be able to see this, it's clear to me in the posts that I've read that he hasn't done particularly well against David's argument, or at least a variant of it that represents what I suspect that David means. However Jonathan has been aided by David's refusal to cast his position in a more traditional utilitarian framework. [Jonathan Ball] You're a little more subtle than Slick, Bob, but you're only taking an unsupportable dig. I've done very well against David's argument, because he really hasn't one. He is arguing a perverse sort of utilitarianism, but it's based on an unsupportable assumption that animals get utility from the mere fact of living. No serious thinker believes they do. [Bob Farrell] I think the degree of success you've had stems from the fact that he's presenting it so poorly. The Goober has had no success at all regardless of how I point out the facts I refer to. Much as Goo wishes he could, he has never been able to explain how anything at all associated with his supposed pre-existent "state" prevents life from being a benefit to living creatures. The argument that animals get utility from living seems obvious to me, even though I admit that it's probably a relatively new idea and not one that has wide acceptance. The fact that many serious thinkers (whatever that means) don't believe it is due IMO to the fact that they're coming from a human-centric orientation. Note that this is not my position, but I think it's a reasonable one for a utilitarian, who believes that the most moral world is that world where total happiness is maximized and that such a world result from having a greater number of happy contented beings - up to the point of diminishing marginal return. I think that this variant of his argument would be stronger and does have a traditional grounding. [end] Bob Farrell 20/12/2001 http://bit.ly/1Bko6WJ Try as hard as he might, demand as loudly and as often as he will that he has beaten Harrison, given another 15 years from now you’ll see him no closer to beating him than he was the day he first decided to waste the last 15 years trying, What Goo feels is his greatest accomplishment is he feels he has persuaded eliminationists not to reconsider their position and learn to appreciate a more Animal Welfare position which would contribute to decent lives for domestic animals rather than the "ar" position of wanting to wipe out every one of them and prevent any more from ever existing in the future. What Goo feels is his greatest accomplishment is something that would be a horrible thing for anyone who truly supports the AW position to EVER do even by mistake, much less spend 15 years desperately trying to do it deliberately. getting angrier and more bitter every year that passes. Well done, Harrison! Thanks. Despite your relatively poor education compared to Jonathan’s I've been on a number of farms and appreciated seeing lots of livestock animals that clearly appeared to be enjoying decent lives of positive value. In contrast to that Goo has not only never had one such experience himself, but he doesn't even believe it's possible. Even among his own kind Goo doesn't believe it's possible: "It is not to my son's advantage to have been born versus never existing" - Goo "Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage to an entity, compared with never existing." - Goo "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial" for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo oft-boasted tutelage while gaining his reported Ph.D. in economics, UCLA, When Goo told people he had one he lied to them about it since he did not. you’ve done a fine job holding off that braggart for so long and made a total fool of him. Thanks again though much of the credit goes to Goo making a fool of his own self, very VERY often outstupiding himself by the blatancy of his own dishonesties. In fact I've the suspicion that idiotically blatant dishonest behavior from Goo, directed at you and Rupert, is a large part of what inspired you to begin this thread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rudy's verdict | Janet B | Dog health | 1 | September 20th 06 01:51 PM |
Visitor Looking For Some Sanity - Verdict | Pawman | Dog behavior | 1 | August 29th 05 09:22 AM |
Jonathan's quotes - posted for Harrison's future reference | [email protected] | Dogs - general | 8 | February 12th 05 12:48 AM |
Ping DAVID COHEN | Susan Cohen | Dog behavior | 6 | October 22nd 03 06:05 AM |
Ping DAVID COHEN | Susan Cohen | Dog breeds | 0 | October 21st 03 07:19 AM |