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
|
|||
|
|||
Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
On 4/27/2006 5:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
Leif Erikson, my ethical and intellectual better in every way, wrote: rupie mccallum, ethical fraud from whom the veneer is peeling in great sheets, wrote: Leif Erikson wrote: rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote: Leif Erikson wrote: rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote: Leif Erikson wrote: rupie mccallum, ethical fraud, wrote: The irrelevance of this is so obvious it beggars belief. You're the one who has insisted, shrilly, that you do share the "inner life" of a giraffe, rupie. Nonsense. I have said that it is logically possible that I could come to have the experiences of a giraffe. And it's a false statement: you could not, unless you and the giraffe both were in permanent vegetative states, and that's not what you meant. It's not a false statement. It's a false statement unless you meant both you and the giraffe would come to be in vegetative states. If you keep forgetting to take your psycho meds, you might well be in one soon anyway. As explained, impossible to prove and irrelevant. Highly relevant: you have been claiming for close to a dozen posts that you can. You can't. Your claim is about what is causally possible. My claim is about what is logically possible. Your claim is crap. You logically CANNOT share the inner life of a giraffe, you moron. Ipse dixit and false. No, rupie. Logically, you and the giraffe cannot share the same inner life unless you and it are essentially dead, in which case you have no inner life. Saying it over and over again without any argument Argument given. YOU take a prescription drug, regularly, and you'd take a better one for the same purpose if it were put on the market. No. This is one of your delusions. No. You would take the improved anti-crazy drug were it to be developed, and you *WILL* take other drugs as you age. And of course, you have done in the last decade, just as predicted. The point is, rupie, you have NO QUALMS about taking prescription drugs, now or in future, despite the fact that every one you might conceivably take will have been tested on animals, with some of the tests being intentionally lethal. You do not believe in animal "rights", rupie. You claim you believe in human rights. I put to you the question whether you maintain in all seriousness that if you had a vulnerability to psychosis and the only antipsychotics available had been lethally tested on humans, you would allow yourself to go psychotic. Forget about hypotheticals involving me, rupie. You'd like me to, wouldn't you? You must, wobbly rupie, because you're the psycho and I'm not. We don't need any hypotheticals, wobbly rupie - we already have the *actual* psycho in you, and you take drugs that have been tested on animals. We're talking about ACTUALS involving you: actuals that prove you don't respect animal "rights". And I'm talking about hypotheticals *and* Because you're frantically trying to deflect the massive and horrible moral blame you incur. You fail. Even if I were violating rights by eating plant foods, it would still be an improvement to at least eat no animal-derived foods. You can't show that on the utilitarian grounds you appear to embrace, rupie. It's pretty obvious by now that you're a utilitarian, False. No, true. All of your support for your position, beginning with your belief that sentience is the relative criterion, is Singerian in its approach. All of your blabber has been about harm and interests, not per se violations of rights. You reject the very distinction Regan feels is essential to make it an issue of rights rather than interests. You're a utilitarian. No. Yes. and as such, you now *do* need to take ****wit David Harrison's view that "at least the animals 'get to experience life'" into account. In any case, rupie, it isn't only about the animals killed in the course of producing the foods you eat. Your "lifestyle" causes animals to die willy-nilly in the course of all sorts of activities. But it is still better for me to be vegan than not. non sequitur I thought it was precisely the issue we were talking about. No. So: either you're a deontologist, and you can't casually dismiss the collateral deaths you cause; or, you're a utilitarian, and now you have to take the lost life experience of the "prevented" animals into consideration. Which is it, rupie? Deontologist. No. See above. Utilitarian, without question. You can't reject Regan's "subject-of-a-life" crapola and rely on mere sentience, and be a deontologist. Then why did you bother to ask? To stick a jagged broken broom handle - the one Dreck busted over his dog Merlin's back - up your ass, you stupid psycho. You'd better stick with the numbers, rupie. I suppose you can do that, but you can't do philosophy. I can do philosophy a lot better than you No. But I believe there are limits to how far I have to go out of my way to avoid financially support processes Not "financially support", rupie, you slimy sleazy ****: ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in. Do you understand me, boy? STOP downplaying it as "mere" financial support; it is not. It is ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in processes that you *know* cause animals to die; active and UNNECESSARY participation. Active participation - that's settled. I heap well justified opprobrium on lying, sanctimonious, HYPOCRITICAL totalitarian-minded scum who presume to tell the rest of us how we "ought" to live, when they in their nasty, slothful passivism don't do anything, not a ****ing thing, to abide by the so-called "principles" they claim to hold. We *do* do lots of things to abide by our moral beliefs. You *DON'T*, rupie. ALL you do is refrain from putting animal parts in your mouth. But that's only symbolic. In fact, growing your own "death-free" food would, in the larger scheme of things, also be only symbolic. So why do you do the one empty symbolic gesture but not the other? Here's why: because the one is easy, and the other is hard, and like all the rest of the "vegans", you're a lazy ****; you don't like to do hard, uncomfortable things. Wobbly rupie has made no progress on this in a decade. rupie? This requires your attention. Okay, well to start with they're not empty symbolic gestures. Yes, they are. They really have no impact at all on the overall state of treatment of animals. What they're intended to do is absolve yourself of responsibility. But you're willing to make the one easy empty symbolic gesture, and not the other more difficult but still empty gesture. Why is that, rupie? As I've explained, I don't believe I'm morally required to do it. Mere expediency, and you're wrong. You *are* morally required to do it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another clue regarding the real agenda of animal "rights" activists | Handsome Jack Morrison | Dog behavior | 2 | March 22nd 07 05:34 PM |
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare | dh@. | Dogs - general | 0 | July 11th 06 01:43 PM |
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare | dh@. | Dogs - general | 1 | July 10th 06 04:49 PM |
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare | Leif Erikson | Dog behavior | 2 | June 12th 06 01:14 AM |