A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

David Harrison Vs Jonathan Ball - the verdict



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 29th 15, 08:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,uk.business.agriculture,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.behavior,sci.agriculture
mur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.