On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- You are an active participant
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
> >>>>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
> >>>>>>>>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things.
>
> >>>>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
> >>>>>>>> the second. *Both are false.
>
> >>>>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living
> >>>>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some
> >>>>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that
> >>>>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been
> >>>>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I
> >>>>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as
> >>>>>>> a "reasonable effort",
>
> >>>>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering
> >>>>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.
>
> >>>>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing.
>
> >>>> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing.
>
> >>> You strike me as being a very irrational person.
>
> >> No.
>
> > Really?
>
> Really.

So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, Ball.

You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the
amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that
need to take place in order to produce my food. And I, while aware of
this, think of you as a rational person.

That's a correct paraphrase of your worldview, yes?