On Jun 4, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> I spoke with complete and perfect clarity. Even given
> >>>> that, I could foresee that you would not comprehend.
>
> >>> When you said "That's the wrong argument",
> >> I was right.
>
> > Wonderful,
>
> No more so than all the other instances in which I was
> right, which is to say, an everyday occurrence.
>
> >>>>>>> You claim the argument
> >>>>>>> is flawed?
> >>>>>> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
> >>>>> Elaborate.
> >>>> I already did.
>
> >>> You have given details of why this "inefficiency argument" which you
> >>> claim that people make is flawed, and I agree with you.
> >> Then shut up.
>
> > Why on earth?
>
> Because you have nothing sensible to say.
>
> >>>>> How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
> >>>>> environmental consequences
> >>>> That isn't the argument, you ****wit.
>
> >>> It is the argument that *I* was talking about.
> >> It's not the argument that this entire thread is about,
> >> you arrogant ****wit.
>
> > Sigh.
> > [snip tiresome wheeze]
>
> **** off.
>

You misspelled "Oh yeah, you're right, I was the one who got confused
about which argument we were talking about, I guess I looked a little
silly calling you a ****wit."

>
>
> >>>>> based on a misconception of efficiency?
> >>>> The argument I'm addressing is indeed based on a
> >>>> misconception of efficiency, rupie. You're talking
> >>>> about some other argument.
>
> >>> That's right.
> >> So get the **** out and go start your own thread, shitbag.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, shithead.
>

I have started a new thread, by the way. You're welcome to reply to
it.

> >>>>> Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
> >>>>> wanted to attack.
> >>>> It is.
>
> >>> I thought so.
> >> You dense clod.
>
> > Rudy, you are the one who
>
> Who kicked your ass, ****wit.
>

If you say it often enough, it will become true.

> >>>>>>> Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.
> >>>>>> Already done.
> >>>>> Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target.
> >>>> You stupid uncomprehending ****, rupie. The
> >>>> environmental degradation argument is not the one I'm
> >>>> addressing. The (misconceived) "efficiency" argument
> >>>> is the one I'm addressing. Try to pay better
> >>>> attention, rupie.
>
> >>> Um, that is exactly what I was saying.
> >> No, it's what *I* was saying, dope.
>
> > It's also what I was saying.
>
> No,

Reality-testing problems again. If you bother to read the thread
again, Ball, you'll find that it is indeed what I was saying.

> you were blabbering away about how the "vegans"
> were saying something different from what I said they
> were.

Not on that occasion, no. But that is true as well.

> You were wrong - as usual. You dense clod.
>

Change the subject and make yet another unargued assertion. Yes,
that'll work.

> >>>>>>> You haven't done this yet,
> >>>>>> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
> >>>>> Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
> >>>>> argument, or your "efficiency argument"
> >>>> Not "my" efficiency argument; the one that that
> >>>> ****witted prostitute lesley keeps trying to advance.
>
> >>> (1) There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, it is a perfectly
> >>> legitimate form of employment.
> >> It's corrosive and disgusting.
>
> > Don't know what you mean by "corrosive".
>
> Of course you wouldn't, psycho.
>

Because you just blabbered it out without really thinking about what
you mean? Fair enough.

What about the part that you snipped, Ball? You've never so much as
bought a copy of Playboy, is that correct?

> >>> (2) Lesley is not a prostitute.
> >> lesley is a whore. She provides sex services for money
> >> to "foot massage" customers.
>
> > Fascinating.
>
> Not really. Dirty slags have been doing it for millennia.
>

So, Ball, it looks like what's happened here is you've made up this
fantasy about Lesley providing sexual services to her customers and
have managed to completely convince yourself that you know it to be
true. I really am a bit worried about you, Ball. I think you ought to
see a doctor.

> >>> (3) Anyone who tries to denigrate someone by calling them a
> >>> "prostitute" is a thoroughly inferior human being
> >> ipse dixit
>
> > But true,
>
> False, and another instance of ipse dixit on your part.
> Boy, you sure do like those fallacies, rupie.
>

You are the one who constantly make unargued assertions, and they are
generally quite laughable. This assertion of mine was true and will be
recognized as such by reasonable people. Running away from the truth
won't change it.

> >>> (4) I doubt that Lesley actually intends to make the "efficiency
> >>> argument" as you interpret it
> >> She does. You're full of shit.
>
> > So I'm supposed to believe you just because you say so?
>
> No, you're supposed to look at her posts, stupid.
>

I did. You're having delusions again.

> >>>>> (which I am not convinced
> >>>>> anyone actually makes).
> >>>> Yes, people do.
>
> >>> So you say.
> >> So I have shown.
>
> > You haven't provided the slightest evidence whatever
>
> I have.

No.

> Shut your ****ing yap.
>
> >>>>> Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
> >>>>> argument".
> >>>> Of course.
>
> >>> Well done.
> >> Of course. It's the usual outcome.
>
> > Actually, I was thinking
>
> No.
>
> >>>>>>> I was simply pointing out this fact.
> >>>>>> No, because it's not a fact.
> >>>>> I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
> >>>>> argument,
> >>>> I haven't.
>
> >>> Great.
> >> So **** off.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> But good advice.
>
> >>>>> and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
> >>>>> you have... well, by all means try to convince me.
> >>>> Once again, vegetarians are guilty of promoting
> >>>> environmental degradation with their diets. Thus, what
> >>>> it comes down to is how much environmental degradation
> >>>> is acceptable.
> >>> Yes, certainly.
> >> So, "vegans" are not clean.
>
> > Um, that's a rather strange way of putting it,
>
> Not really. How about this: "Let he who is without
> sin cast the first stone." That eliminates "vegans".
>

Never heard of vegans casting any stones. You're not a religious
believer, so this is a strange allusion for you to make. But Jesus
certainly would have been in favour of his followers encouraging
others to live better lives, despite the fact that they weren't
perfect themselves.

> >>>> Since some degradation must, by logical
> >>>> necessity, be acceptable to vegetarians, then
> >>>> environmental degradation _per se_ is not a reason to
> >>>> oppose meat production.
>
> >>>> Once again, "vegans" are seen as hypocrites.
> >>> No, you can specify a threshold about how much environmental
> >>> degradation is acceptable,
> >> "vegans" do so arbitrarily. There is nothing sound
> >> about where they draw the line. It's based purely on
> >> self image.
>
> > It's a no more arbitrary place to draw the line
>
> It's arbitrary, and without any sound foundation.

There's no more reason to think this in their case than in yours.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 4, 5:09 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>>
>> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
>> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
>> difficulties
>> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away in
>> a
>> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
>> fundamental
>> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
>> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
>> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
>> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
>> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De Grazia's
>> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
>> mind.
>> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
>> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
>> you
>> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.

Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do. That
doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.

>Well, I don't
> agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> do this.

Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is inherent
in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally, which
one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
impossible to achieve.

> You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> actually involves.

The phrase seems to say it all.

>You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> realize this.

Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.

> Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> duties.

How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?

Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
> consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> wrong.

In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.

>
> There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.

Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.

You're
> wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> simple as you think.

As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
sponsoring the systematic killing of animals. This state of affairs in no
minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies. This life is a
bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
conceits,

On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 5:09 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> >> difficulties
> >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away in
> >> a
> >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> >> fundamental
> >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De Grazia's
> >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> >> mind.
> >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> >> you
> >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do. That
> doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>

Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
equal consideration. If someone offered a good defence of species
discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.

> >Well, I don't
> > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > do this.
>
> Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is inherent
> in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally, which
> one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> impossible to achieve.
>

No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
confused about what "equal consideration" means.

> > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > actually involves.
>
> The phrase seems to say it all.
>

Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
the people who originated the phrase.

> >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > realize this.
>
> Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>

Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
person who invented it. You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
issue.

> > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > duties.
>
> How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>

I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
you, I am happy to help you out.

> Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > wrong.
>
> In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>

Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism. Moral philosophers
have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.

>
>
> > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>

It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
understand what it would take to establish this.

> You're
>
> > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > simple as you think.
>
> As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.

Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
about it.

> This state of affairs in no
> minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.

Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
think.

> This life is a
> bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> conceits,

Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
don't really understand what I am committed to.


> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>>>>>>>> he gives.
>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
>>>> already believed.
>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
>>
>
> Er, no.

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.


>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
>> ever doing that.
>>
>
> You don't know anything whatsoever

No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.

Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
voluntary, repeated participation.


>>>>>> "vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
>>>>>> an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
>>>>>> they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.
>>>>> But I think that when they make the statement that it is an
>>>>> inefficient use of resources, what they are really doing is appealling
>>>>> to considerations about environmental costs and global food
>>>>> distribution of the kind that I have referred to.
>>>> No, stupid uncomprehending rupie; they aren't. Most of
>>>> them go on to suggest that we ought to devote some of
>>>> the resources used to produce meat to feed "the hungry"
>>>> of the world instead. In other words, rupie, they want
>>>> to continue to degrade the environment, they just want
>>>> the output redirected. You stupid ****.
>>> The suggestion of directing the resources towards feeding the hungry
>>> is a suggestion that would result in less environmental damage,
>> No, rupie. If we devote *any* more resources to
>> producing food than is needed to produce food just for
>> us, then they are out of necessity promoting more
>> environmental degradation than otherwise would need to
>> occur. For example, you uncomprehending ****, the
>> silly "vegans" often state that the "same" feed given
>> to livestock could instead be sent overseas to feed
>> "the hungry", if we would only stop raising livestock.
>> But if we stopped raising livestock, you
>> uncomprehending ****, then we wouldn't need to produce
>> that feed *at all*, in order to feed ourselves. By
>> continuing to produce the feed, rupie, we cause more
>> environmental degradation than is needed just to feed
>> ourselves.
>>
>
> This really is quite an absurd argument you're making.

No, windbag.


>> You stupid fat ****.
>>
>
> Dear oh dear.

Worthless.



>>>>>>>> But it *is*
>>>>>>>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
>>>>>>>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>>>>>>> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
>>>>>>> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.
>>>>>> They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
>>>>>> fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.
>>>>> No, Rudy, that's nonsense.
>>>> No, rupie, it isn't. It's correct.
>>> It's utterly absurd,
>> No, it isn't.
>
> No, I'm afraid it is,

It isn't.


>> They and you participate in
>> animal-killing processes, unnecessarily, and that
>> totally guts your so-called "ethical" claims.
>>
>>>>>>> You've never offered
>>>>>>> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]
>>>>>> I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
>>>>>> forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.
>>>>> No, I'm afraid not.
>>>> Yes, I'm quite certain.
>>> Yes, you are quite certain,
>> And right.
>
> No, I'm afraid not.

Wrong.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:23 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
>>>>> diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
>>>>> to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
>>>>> resolved while still remaining vegan,
>>>> No, that isn't reasonable to assume.
>>> Perfectly reasonable,
>> Not reasonable at all, rupie.
>>
>
> I'm afraid

You say that a lot, rupie. Why are you so fearful?


>>>>>>>>> that seems very unlikely to me
>>>>>>>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>>>>>> I mean what I say.
>>>>>> You mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>>>> You're a fool. I mean what I say.
>>>> You mean it conflicts with your ideology.
>>> You really are a
>> I really am kicking your pimply flabby animal-killing ass.
>>
>
> That's what you think

That's what it is.


>>>>>> rupie, do your own research from now on.
>>>>> Why?
>>>> Because I'm tired of leading you by your dainty hand,
>>>> rupie. I'd rather punch you in the face.
>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>
>
> Um, no,

UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.


>>>>>> The point is, rupie, you fat ****,
>>>>> You're such a fool.
>>>> Shut your ****ing mouth, you fat ****.
>>> Well, I could,
>> Do it.
>>
>
> And what exactly

Do it.


>>>>>> that "vegans" make
>>>>>> this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
>>>>>> *separate* argument from the environmental degradation
>>>>>> argument, although the "vegans" often state them
>>>>>> together.
>>>>> Well, that's your reading of the situation.
>>>> My *correct* reading, rupie.
>>> So you say.
>> So I have shown.
>>
>
> In your

In reality, rupie.


>>>>>> The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
>>>>>> time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
>>>>>> efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.
>>>>> I dispute the former,
>>>> Without basis.
>>> On the contrary,
>> Your disputatiousness is ideological in origin, with no
>> factual basis.
>>
>
> No, it's the other way round

Nope.


>>>>>>>> The environmental argument is something different.
>>>>>>>> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
>>>>>>>> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
>>>>>>>> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
>>>>>>>> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>>>>>>> Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.
>>>>>> You're willfully blind.
>>>>> You're a fool.
>>>> You're an arrogant and insular fat ****.
>>> Nope.
>> Yes, indeed you are.
>>
>
> Well, just keep

You are - an arrogant, deluded, insular fat ****.


>>>>>>> You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
>>>>>>> right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
>>>>>>> misreading them.
>>>>>> There is zero chance of that.
>>>>> Well, actually,
>>>> **** off, you insular narrow-minded fat ****.
>>> Such mastery
>> Of course, rupie.

Of course, rupie. You fat ****.

On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]

> >>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>
> > Um, no,
>
> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>

You really have no idea how funny this is, do you, Ball? You fantasize
about engaging in violence towards me on no provocation whatsoever. I
am not a violent person in any shape or form. This is obvious to
anyone. But you are trying to suggest that, since I had two psychotic
episodes a number of years ago, I am the one who has violent
tendencies and is a "menace to society" and a "psycho". And,
astonishingly, you are clearly blissly oblivious to how utterly absurd
this is to any sensible person.

Psychosis has nothing to do with anger management issues, you ignorant
twit. You are the one with anger management issues, and you also have
very serious reality-testing problems. You might benefit from some
antipsychotic medication yourself. Have a chat about it with your
doctor.

On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000prg .googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
> >>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >>>>>>>>> he gives.
> >>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> >>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
> >>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
> >>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
> >>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> >>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
> >>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> >>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> >>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
> >>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
> >>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
> >>>> already believed.
> >>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
> >>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
> >> I've documented it many times, rupie.
>
> > Er, no.
>
> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>

You really are funny, Ball. Writing down fantasies you've made up is
not "documenting" anything. You don't have any evidence available to
you which bears on the question of whether my testimony is true or
false.

> >> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
> >> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
> >> you have time to get started raising your own food and
> >> getting away from participation in animal-killing
> >> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
> >> ever doing that.
>
> > You don't know anything whatsoever
>
> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>

"Whatsoever" is a perfectly legitimate word, you stupid fool.

> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
> voluntary, repeated participation.
>

There are a lot of things you *think* you know, Ball, but virtually
nothing worth mentioning that you *do* know.

> > No, I'm afraid not.
>
> Wrong.

The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
view is correct, which you snipped and failed to engage with. You have
offered no reasoning to back up your point of view whatsoever, you are
just asserting it, because that is all you can do. No rational person
is fooled.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


> >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> >> difficulties
> >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away
> >> in
> >> a
> >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> >> fundamental
> >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De
> >> Grazia's
> >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> >> mind.
> >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> >> you
> >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do.
> That
> doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>

Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
equal consideration.

---->
You never embraced it, it's just a phrase you like the sound of.


If someone offered a good defence of species
discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.

---->
It doesn't require a defense, you can't live on this earth and not
discriminate based on species. Therefore the only way to abandon it would be
to cease to exist.

> >Well, I don't
> > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > do this.
>
> Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is
> inherent
> in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally,
> which
> one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> impossible to achieve.
>

No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
confused about what "equal consideration" means.

---->
I know what equal means, I know what consideration means, how hard can it
be?


> > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > actually involves.
>
> The phrase seems to say it all.
>

Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
the people who originated the phrase.

---->
De Grazia made up the phrase without knowing what it means. He admits that.


> >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > realize this.
>
> Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>

Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
person who invented it.

---->
He has no authority to assign meaning to words that don't conform to their
natural meanings, unless he's being colloquial.

You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
issue.

---->
I am competent enough in the english language to know what equal
consideration *should* mean.

> > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > duties.
>
> How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>

I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
you, I am happy to help you out.

---->
Your explanations are circuitous sophisms, they don't clarify anything.


> Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > wrong.
>
> In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>

Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism.

---->
No, it's anti-pseudo-intellectuallism.

Moral philosophers
have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.


---->
I know that "equal consideration" could not remotely apply to any way that
humans could systematically relate to non-humans. A human could conceivably
value a beloved dog as much as he values his child, even that is unlikely.
In fact every consideration we have towards other beings is unique to the
relationship between us and each of them. None of them is equal.

>
>
> > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>

It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
understand what it would take to establish this.

---->
It's been established a hell of a lot more rigorously than "equal
consideration" which make ZERO sense.


> You're
>
> > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > simple as you think.
>
> As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.

Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
about it.

---->
If you are trying to precipitate an insult by being tiresome so you can play
the victim again I'm not going to bite this time.

> This state of affairs in no
> minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.

Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
think.

---->
No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_mite
You didn't comment about mowing the lawn, have you ever sat outside at night
under a big light and watched the life in a lawn? There are millions of tiny
creatures, whole bug worlds spring up in a few weeks. They are laid waste
when we cut the grass.


> This life is a
> bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> conceits,

Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
don't really understand what I am committed to.

---->
You're not saying anything of substance. I have demonstrated in this post
that "equal consideration" can't really mean equal because we kill demodex
mites when we wash our hair. We also kill small creatures when we wash our
clothes, vacuum the carpet, walk, even breathe. So you must least take the
step of stipulating that size matters. The problem with that is though, it
doesn't stop with mites, the continuum.. continues. It keeps going up
through beetles and grasshoppers, roaches, toads, lizards, finally mammals.
Animal life is ubiquitous, we're part of an animal soup. It's difficult
enough to give some kind of consideration to some people, much less every
animal in existence. It's just not a plausible concept. It does have a nice
ring to it though, I'll give you that. AR is all about concepts that have
nice rings to them, people love that.

"Rupert" > wrote
> The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> view is correct, which you snipped and failed to engage with. You have
> offered no reasoning to back up your point of view whatsoever, you are
> just asserting it, because that is all you can do. No rational person
> is fooled.

Actually, this thread began by Mr Rudy posting an elegant argument on the
issue. Since then you have simply been barking back, asserting that are not
convinced, inserting numerous references to how qualified you are to talk on
these matters and whining about being insulted.

On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> > >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence you
> > >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> > >> difficulties
> > >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it away
> > >> in
> > >> a
> > >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> > >> fundamental
> > >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the difficulty
> > >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> > >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought regarding
> > >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> > >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De
> > >> Grazia's
> > >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> > >> mind.
> > >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> > >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't deter
> > >> you
> > >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> > Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do.
> > That
> > doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>
> Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
> equal consideration.
>
> ---->
> You never embraced it, it's just a phrase you like the sound of.
>

No. I know what it means, you don't. You're not competent to comment
on the matter.

> If someone offered a good defence of species
> discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.
>
> ---->
> It doesn't require a defense, you can't live on this earth and not
> discriminate based on species. Therefore the only way to abandon it would be
> to cease to exist.
>

You don't understand what constitutes species discrimination and what
doesn't.

> > >Well, I don't
> > > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > > do this.
>
> > Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is
> > inherent
> > in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally,
> > which
> > one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> > impossible to achieve.
>
> No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
> confused about what "equal consideration" means.
>
> ---->
> I know what equal means, I know what consideration means, how hard can it
> be?
>

Well, it's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. I can see that your lack
of background in moral philosophy is giving you trouble understanding
the concept. I can try and help you if you like, but you may have to
do a bit of reading. You'll also have to give me credit for not
engaging in "circuitous sophisms". I'm not. If you don't accept that,
well, that's really not my problem.

> > > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > > actually involves.
>
> > The phrase seems to say it all.
>
> Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
> the people who originated the phrase.
>
> ---->
> De Grazia made up the phrase without knowing what it means. He admits that.
>

No.

> > >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > > realize this.
>
> > Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration instead.
>
> Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
> person who invented it.
>
> ---->
> He has no authority to assign meaning to words that don't conform to their
> natural meanings, unless he's being colloquial.
>

"Equal consideration" is a good phrase for what he means. You would
understand this if you were more familiar with the different schools
of thought in moral philosophy and their different approaches to the
issue of what human equality means.

> You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
> for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
> what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
> issue.
>
> ---->
> I am competent enough in the english language to know what equal
> consideration *should* mean.
>

No, I'm afraid you're not. It's not just the kind of thing that common
sense and competence in English gives you an insight into. You've got
to have some familiarity with the attempts by different moral
philosophers to explain what we mean by equality.

> > > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > > duties.
>
> > How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>
> I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
> that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
> you, I am happy to help you out.
>
> ---->
> Your explanations are circuitous sophisms, they don't clarify anything.
>

Not to you, maybe. My explanations are not sophisms. I may not be
doing a very good job of helping you at the moment. Some concepts take
time to explain. If you're prepared to listen and make a genuine
effort to understand we can work through the book again and I can
refer you to some other literature which may help you. I think my
explanations should have helped you at least a little bit. I think
you're not really making a good faith effort to understand. You've
just decided that there's nothing to understand.

> > Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > > wrong.
>
> > In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> > sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable to
> > someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>
> Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism.
>
> ---->
> No, it's anti-pseudo-intellectuallism.
>

No, it's not. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.
You're not competent to evaluate DeGrazia's work in moral philosophy
when you don't know the context which it fits into.

> Moral philosophers
> have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
> There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
> take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
> able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
> mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
> consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
> try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
> acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.
>
> ---->
> I know that "equal consideration" could not remotely apply to any way that
> humans could systematically relate to non-humans. A human could conceivably
> value a beloved dog as much as he values his child, even that is unlikely.
> In fact every consideration we have towards other beings is unique to the
> relationship between us and each of them. None of them is equal.
>

You're refusing to make an effort to understand what "equal
consideration" is really supposed to mean. What about your other
point, we spend money on ourselves instead of feeding the starving so
we don't give equal consideration to humans either? All right, in that
sense of equal consideration we don't, no. But it's silly to assume
that that's the only sense of equal consideration worth examining.

>
>
> > > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> > Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of our
> > reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>
> It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
> understand what it would take to establish this.
>
> ---->
> It's been established a hell of a lot more rigorously than "equal
> consideration" which make ZERO sense.
>

No, I'm afraid it hasn't. The concept of discrimination on the basis
of species is linked to the concept of equal consideration. If you
don't understand one, you don't understand the other. And if you don't
understand the concept of discrimination on the basis of species, you
can't rigorously establish anything about it. If you want to make a
respectable criticism of DeGrazia's ideas, you're going to have to
make a better effort to understand them. Your current attempts aren't
good enough. You're not manifesting any real understanding.

> > You're
>
> > > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > > simple as you think.
>
> > As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> > consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in order
> > to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you are
> > sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.
>
> Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
> understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
> acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
> about it.
>
> ---->
> If you are trying to precipitate an insult by being tiresome so you can play
> the victim again I'm not going to bite this time.
>

Well, look, I'm sorry you find it tiresome, but I'm afraid it's true.
I find it pretty tiresome that you keep on carrying on as though
you're competent to criticize these ideas when you obviously don't
understand them, and that when I try to educate you you say I'm
engaging in sophisms.

> > This state of affairs in no
> > minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> > even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.
>
> Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
> think.
>
> ---->
> No?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_mite
> You didn't comment about mowing the lawn, have you ever sat outside at night
> under a big light and watched the life in a lawn? There are millions of tiny
> creatures, whole bug worlds spring up in a few weeks. They are laid waste
> when we cut the grass.
>

Yes. Their sentience is a matter for reasonable doubt.

> > This life is a
> > bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> > extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99% of
> > the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our silly
> > conceits,
>
> Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
> would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
> that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
> should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
> not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
> don't really understand what I am committed to.
>
> ---->
> You're not saying anything of substance. I have demonstrated in this post
> that "equal consideration" can't really mean equal because we kill demodex
> mites when we wash our hair.

That's a silly argument. There's no reason to think demodex mites are
sentient.

>We also kill small creatures when we wash our
> clothes, vacuum the carpet, walk, even breathe. So you must least take the
> step of stipulating that size matters.

Some things matter. Sentience is one of them. Level of cognitive
complexity may be another.

> The problem with that is though, it
> doesn't stop with mites, the continuum.. continues. It keeps going up
> through beetles and grasshoppers, roaches, toads, lizards, finally mammals.
> Animal life is ubiquitous, we're part of an animal soup. It's difficult
> enough to give some kind of consideration to some people, much less every
> animal in existence. It's just not a plausible concept. It does have a nice
> ring to it though, I'll give you that. AR is all about concepts that have
> nice rings to them, people love that.

On Jun 4, 5:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> > view is correct, which you snipped and failed to engage with. You have
> > offered no reasoning to back up your point of view whatsoever, you are
> > just asserting it, because that is all you can do. No rational person
> > is fooled.
>
> Actually, this thread began by Mr Rudy posting an elegant argument on the
> issue.

On a completely different issue to the one under discussion in what
you are replying to.

> Since then you have simply been barking back, asserting that are not
> convinced, inserting numerous references to how qualified you are to talk on
> these matters and whining about being insulted.

What Ball did was construct this imaginary argument based purely on
resource-intensiveness and point out that it was flawed. It takes no
great intellectual effort to see that that argument is flawed. But
obviously no-one actually makes it. When people complain about the
resource-intensiveness of meat production, they are obviously really
referring to alleged environmental effects, or alleged pernicious
effects on global food distribution. No-one complains about resource-
intensiveness in itself. Ball thinks they do, but that is just because
he is seeing what he wants to see. He hasn't produced the slightest
shred of evidence for this bizarre interpretation. I have been
pointing this out. I have also been pointing out many of his other
imbecilities. If you cannot see that Ball has been making a complete
donkey out of himself in this thread as always, then I am quite
surprised. I did actually have some level of respect for your
intelligence.

I haven't been making a particularly big deal about my qualifications
to talk about animal ethics. I made a lengthy response to Ball's
tiresome repetition of his silly delusion that I approached the
subject looking for confirmation of what I already believed. Ball
constantly repeating the silly delusions he makes up about people gets
tiresome. One is moved to try and confront him with the truth.

Your calling me a little shit was unreasonable and uncalled for. I did
not whine about it, I just pointed out that fact and indicated how I
was going to respond.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > >> > I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position.
>
> > >> I believe that you think that you are, but I don't see any evidence
> > >> you
> > >> actually are facing up to them. When you encounter one of these
> > >> difficulties
> > >> your apparent response is to acknowledge it, label it and file it
> > >> away
> > >> in
> > >> a
> > >> folder called "difficulties", then you carry on as before, the
> > >> fundamental
> > >> beliefs and conclusions that you had before encountering the
> > >> difficulty
> > >> remain unscathed. It's as if you find AR ideals so compelling, so
> > >> comforting, that you have abandoned all real critical thought
> > >> regarding
> > >> them. You think that perhaps some solution will emerge to resolve the
> > >> difficulties if you just leave them stored away long enough? De
> > >> Grazia's
> > >> "equal consideration" is one example of this phenomenon that comes to
> > >> mind.
> > >> You seem to find the notion so intuitive, so appealling, that even De
> > >> Grazia's own admitted doubts and confusion over the concept don't
> > >> deter
> > >> you
> > >> from viewing it as a de facto fundamental moral imperative.
>
> > > You seem to think that, in light of these difficulties, the only
> > > rational thing I can do is abandon equal consideration.
>
> > Of course, that's what rational thought is supposed to allow you to do.
> > That
> > doesn't mean you can't reassess the position at any time.
>
> Yeah, but you're wrong. There's no rational reason for be to abandon
> equal consideration.
>
> ---->
> You never embraced it, it's just a phrase you like the sound of.
>

No. I know what it means, you don't.

It's a pile of crap that people like you spout to make themselves feel
important.

> You're not competent to comment on the matter.

Then **** off and quit responding to my comments.


> If someone offered a good defence of species
> discrimination, that might make it rational for me to do that.
>
> ---->
> It doesn't require a defense, you can't live on this earth and not
> discriminate based on species. Therefore the only way to abandon it would
> be
> to cease to exist.
>

You don't understand what constitutes species discrimination and what
doesn't.

I understand it just fine. If you treat other species fundamentally
differently at a life and death level than you treat humans you're
discriminating against them based on species. We all sponsor such
discrimination, we have no choice, it's built into our nature, into the very
ecosystem.


> > >Well, I don't
> > > agree. It's true that equal consideration raises difficulties, but
> > > there are also difficulties with unequal consideration, namely, the
> > > challenge of explaining why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I've never seen what I regard as a satisfactory attempt to
> > > do this.
>
> > Why does it require justification? It seems to me that doing so is
> > inherent
> > in the very fabric of existence. Equal consideration, taken literally,
> > which
> > one must do or else find a new phrase, implies behaviours that are
> > impossible to achieve.
>
> No, it doesn't, or at least that hasn't been shown yet. You're
> confused about what "equal consideration" means.
>
> ---->
> I know what equal means, I know what consideration means, how hard can it
> be?
>

Well, it's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. I can see that your lack
of background in moral philosophy is giving you trouble understanding
the concept.

The idea is meaningless, you don't understand it either, and your laughable
attempts to explain it show it.

I can try and help you if you like, but you may have to
do a bit of reading. You'll also have to give me credit for not
engaging in "circuitous sophisms". I'm not. If you don't accept that,
well, that's really not my problem.

I don't accept it. I've got news for you, I have been around extremely
intelligent, well-educated people all my life and I have never had a bit of
trouble holding my own in a conversation with any of them. I'll tell what
all that experience has taught me, how to recognize a phony, and you're one.
You're a fake Rupert. You may have read a bunch of books on this subject,
you may be "educated" but you're not smart, you're not wise, you may have
some people fooled but your not fooling anyone here.

> > > You don't seem to have a very good idea of what equal consideration
> > > actually involves.
>
> > The phrase seems to say it all.
>
> Well, maybe you should pay more attention to the explanations given by
> the people who originated the phrase.
>
> ---->
> De Grazia made up the phrase without knowing what it means. He admits
> that.
>

No.

Yes, absolutely. I read the book.

> > >You once asked me whether equal consideration for
> > > humans entailed that we had strong positive duties towards humans who
> > > are much less fortunate than us. Well, the answer is that it doesn't,
> > > and if you were a bit more familiar with moral philosophy you'd
> > > realize this.
>
> > Then it's not equal consideration, call it unequal consideration
> > instead.
>
> Look, I'm telling you what meaning was intended for the phrase by the
> person who invented it.
>
> ---->
> He has no authority to assign meaning to words that don't conform to their
> natural meanings, unless he's being colloquial.
>

"Equal consideration" is a good phrase for what he means. You would
understand this if you were more familiar with the different schools
of thought in moral philosophy and their different approaches to the
issue of what human equality means.

If it doesn't mean "equal" then it's not the right phrase. If it doesn't
mean that we should consider the interests of an ant to be as compelling as
the interests of a human being then that's not equality.


> You think he's come up with the wrong phrase
> for what he means, well, you're entitled to your view, but seriously,
> what would you know? You're really not competent to comment on this
> issue.
>
> ---->
> I am competent enough in the english language to know what equal
> consideration *should* mean.
>

No, I'm afraid you're not. It's not just the kind of thing that common
sense and competence in English gives you an insight into. You've got
to have some familiarity with the attempts by different moral
philosophers to explain what we mean by equality.

Equality already has a clear meaning, "moral philosophers" are not needed to
explain the word.

> > > Equal consideration is compatible with a broad variety
> > > of ethical frameworks, including ones with quite limited positive
> > > duties.
>
> > How do we know if we don't have a clear definition of it?
>
> I have read the explanation DeGrazia gave of the notion, and I know
> that that is what he intended. You may not know this, but luckily for
> you, I am happy to help you out.

>
> ---->
> Your explanations are circuitous sophisms, they don't clarify anything.
>

Not to you, maybe. My explanations are not sophisms. I may not be
doing a very good job of helping you at the moment. Some concepts take
time to explain. If you're prepared to listen and make a genuine
effort to understand we can work through the book again and I can
refer you to some other literature which may help you. I think my
explanations should have helped you at least a little bit. I think
you're not really making a good faith effort to understand. You've
just decided that there's nothing to understand.

I didn't say there was nothing to understand, I said "equal consideration"
is a bullshit concept.


> > Yes, one could desire more clarity in the notion of equal
>
> > > consideration, but people who have some familiarity with the diversity
> > > of frameworks in moral philosophy will have an intuitive sense for how
> > > the concept applies to these different frameworks. The notion is not
> > > too vague to work with for someone who actually has some knowledge of
> > > moral philosophy. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism is an
> > > example of a theory which is consistent with equal consideration.
> > > There could well be other theories that are consistent with it, which
> > > are not absolute rights positions, but not consequentialist positions
> > > either. The last time I said this you said I was just talking
> > > meaningless waffle and engaging in "verbal tap dancing". Well, you're
> > > wrong.
>
> > In other words it's a term that philosphers bandy about whilst sitting
> > sipping lattés in college lounges, don't expect it to sound reasonable
> > to
> > someone who is trying to apply it with common sense.
>
> Look, this is just stupid anti-intellectualism.
>
> ---->
> No, it's anti-pseudo-intellectuallism.
>

No, it's not. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.
You're not competent to evaluate DeGrazia's work in moral philosophy
when you don't know the context which it fits into.


Yes it is. You're a pseudo-intellectual.


> Moral philosophers
> have spent more time thinking about ethical theory than you have.
> There may be some concepts they can usefully employ which it might
> take you a little while to understand. I mean, do you expect to be
> able to understand all the concepts in my thesis (which is in
> mathematics) just from "common sense" alone? You don't get what "equal
> consideration" means. Acknowledge that fact, and if you feel inclined,
> try to do the necessary study to understand the term, or else
> acknowledge that you're not competent to say all that much about it.
>
> ---->
> I know that "equal consideration" could not remotely apply to any way that
> humans could systematically relate to non-humans. A human could
> conceivably
> value a beloved dog as much as he values his child, even that is unlikely.
> In fact every consideration we have towards other beings is unique to the
> relationship between us and each of them. None of them is equal.
>

You're refusing to make an effort to understand what "equal
consideration" is really supposed to mean.

It can't mean something that doesn't follow the meanings of the two words in
the phrase.

What about your other
point, we spend money on ourselves instead of feeding the starving so
we don't give equal consideration to humans either? All right, in that
sense of equal consideration we don't, no. But it's silly to assume
that that's the only sense of equal consideration worth examining.

I didn't say that is the only case worth examining, it was just one thought
that came into my head. The most obvious example is the one we are all
talking about, our relationship with animals. We don't give animals equal
consideration, nobody expects us to, nor should they, and to do so in any
systematic fashion would be impossible.


>
> > > There is a challenge: either construct a comprehensive, satisfactory
> > > ethical theory that is consistent with equal consideration, or come up
> > > with a good account of why discrimination on the basis of species is
> > > justified. I intend to think seriously about this challenge.
>
> > Discrimination of the basis of species is as much an inherent part of
> > our
> > reality as animals, and as humans as birth and death.
>
> It has not been established that it is inescapable. You don't
> understand what it would take to establish this.
>
> ---->
> It's been established a hell of a lot more rigorously than "equal
> consideration" which make ZERO sense.
>

No, I'm afraid it hasn't.

Yes, it has.

The concept of discrimination on the basis
of species is linked to the concept of equal consideration. If you
don't understand one, you don't understand the other. And if you don't
understand the concept of discrimination on the basis of species, you
can't rigorously establish anything about it. If you want to make a
respectable criticism of DeGrazia's ideas, you're going to have to
make a better effort to understand them. Your current attempts aren't
good enough. You're not manifesting any real understanding.

Now you've retreated into a broken record where you assert that you're the
only one who understands concepts.



> > You're
>
> > > wrong to say I'm not facing up to the difficulties. I acknowledge the
> > > difficulties and am thinking seriously about them, I intend to write
> > > some stuff on the subject. That doesn't mean that I am rationally
> > > required to abandon equal consideration. Whether or not equal
> > > consideration should be accepted is a difficult question, it's not as
> > > simple as you think.
>
> > As it stands, at this moment in time, you are abandoning equal
> > consideration, as I understand it, when you realize the fact that in
> > order
> > to live your relatively comfortable existence in western academia you
> > are
> > sponsoring the systematic killing of animals.
>
> Well, I'm not abandoning equal consideration as I or DeGrazia
> understand it. You haven't managed to grasp that concept, you should
> acknowledge that and concede that you're not competent to say anything
> about it.
>
> ---->
> If you are trying to precipitate an insult by being tiresome so you can
> play
> the victim again I'm not going to bite this time.
>

Well, look, I'm sorry you find it tiresome, but I'm afraid it's true.

Well look yourself, you ARE tiresome. You're a blowhard and a phony.

I find it pretty tiresome that you keep on carrying on as though
you're competent to criticize these ideas when you obviously don't
understand them, and that when I try to educate you you say I'm
engaging in sophisms.

I don't accept you as intelligent enough to educate me. You don't display
intelligence, you display pseudo-intellectual parroty snobbery.


> > This state of affairs in no
> > minor hurdle, life for our species could go on if we did not do this. We
> > even kill animals when we cut our lawns or wash our bodies.
>
> Not members of the animal kingdom when we wash our bodies, I don't
> think.
>
> ---->
> No?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_mite
> You didn't comment about mowing the lawn, have you ever sat outside at
> night
> under a big light and watched the life in a lawn? There are millions of
> tiny
> creatures, whole bug worlds spring up in a few weeks. They are laid waste
> when we cut the grass.
>

Yes. Their sentience is a matter for reasonable doubt.

So what? They're animals, and you're killing them by the millions so your
grass can look like a carpet. Don't they possess an instinct, an interest in
survival and procreation? They're designed in wonderful living complexity by
the creator as if they do.


> > This life is a
> > bloody affair. Ironically, if we actually pursued this notion to the
> > extinction of our species (perhaps we ought to), the remainingr 99.99%
> > of
> > the animal life on the planet would do very well without us and our
> > silly
> > conceits,
>
> Yeah, you think it's obvious that taking equal consideration seriously
> would require the extinction of our species. Well, I don't think
> that's obvious. And I understand the concept and you don't. So you
> should really acknowledge that you have no basis for saying that I'm
> not taking the difficulties in my position seriously, because you
> don't really understand what I am committed to.
>
> ---->
> You're not saying anything of substance. I have demonstrated in this post
> that "equal consideration" can't really mean equal because we kill demodex
> mites when we wash our hair.

That's a silly argument. There's no reason to think demodex mites are
sentient.

I never said they were, but they're animals.

>We also kill small creatures when we wash our
> clothes, vacuum the carpet, walk, even breathe. So you must least take the
> step of stipulating that size matters.

Some things matter. Sentience is one of them. Level of cognitive
complexity may be another.

What do you think people do who use chickens as food? We have decided that
chickens have a sufficiently low level of cognitive complexity that provided
their basic needs are met and they are not made to suffer unduly that it is
moral to use them as a food source. We don't call that equal consideration,
yet it follows the same reasoning.

You're not inventing anything new with all this "moral philosophy"
mumbo-jumbo, you trying to lend credibility to an idea that has no legs, the
abolition of animal farming.


> The problem with that is though, it
> doesn't stop with mites, the continuum.. continues. It keeps going up
> through beetles and grasshoppers, roaches, toads, lizards, finally
> mammals.
> Animal life is ubiquitous, we're part of an animal soup. It's difficult
> enough to give some kind of consideration to some people, much less every
> animal in existence. It's just not a plausible concept. It does have a
> nice
> ring to it though, I'll give you that. AR is all about concepts that have
> nice rings to them, people love that.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>
>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>> Um, no,
>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>
>
> You really have no idea how funny this is

Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
bet I do.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>>>>>>>>>> he gives.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>>>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
>>>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
>>>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>>>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
>>>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
>>>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
>>>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
>>>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
>>>>>> already believed.
>>>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
>>>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
>>>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
>>> Er, no.
>> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>>
>
> You really are funny

If you think so, rupie, that's your business.


>>>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
>>>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
>>>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
>>>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
>>>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
>>>> ever doing that.
>>> You don't know anything whatsoever
>> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
>> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>>
>
> "Whatsoever" is

Pretentious and pompous; the mark of an intellectually
insecure dilettante. It suits you perfectly.


>> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
>> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
>> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
>> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
>> voluntary, repeated participation.
>>
>
> There are a lot of things you *think* you know

I know that you will for the rest of your life
actively, knowingly, voluntarily, repeatedly and
needlessly participate in processes that kill animals.
That's what I and every other person who posts here
knows.


>>> No, I'm afraid not.
>> Wrong.
>
> The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> view is correct,

Bogus.

On Jun 5, 12:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000p rg.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >>>>>>>>>>> he gives.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >>>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
> >>>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
> >>>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> >>>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
> >>>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> >>>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> >>>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
> >>>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
> >>>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
> >>>>>> already believed.
> >>>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
> >>>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
> >>>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
> >>> Er, no.
> >> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>
> > You really are funny
>
> If you think so, rupie, that's your business.
>
> >>>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
> >>>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
> >>>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
> >>>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
> >>>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
> >>>> ever doing that.
> >>> You don't know anything whatsoever
> >> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
> >> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>
> > "Whatsoever" is
>
> Pretentious and pompous; the mark of an intellectually
> insecure dilettante. It suits you perfectly.
>
> >> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
> >> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
> >> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
> >> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
> >> voluntary, repeated participation.
>
> > There are a lot of things you *think* you know
>
> I know that you will for the rest of your life
> actively, knowingly, voluntarily, repeatedly and
> needlessly participate in processes that kill animals.
> That's what I and every other person who posts here
> knows.
>

No, you don't know that, Ball. It's a conjecture on your part. There's
quite a lot of things you don't know about what I plan to do.

> >>> No, I'm afraid not.
> >> Wrong.
>
> > The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> > view is correct,
>
> Bogus.

Then refute it.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>
> >>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>> Um, no,
> >> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>
> > You really have no idea how funny this is
>
> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> bet I do.

"Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
reality no matter how many times they are patiently explained to him.
Such as the fact that I am not psychotic.

It's really not a very hard point to grasp, Ball. I had a psychotic
episode in 2001, and another in 2002. I have a vulnerability which I
manage with medication. I am in perfectly good mental health and have
been so for a number of years. You are the one who regularly loses
touch with reality. In any case, trying to someone down on the basis
of having once had a mental illness is the most despicable behaviour
imaginable. You might as well put someone down for being in a
wheelchair. It truly is amazing, the depths you will stoop to without
the slightest sense of shame.

On Jun 4, 5:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000p rg.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > >>>>>>>>>>> he gives.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
> > >>>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
> > >>>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
> > >>>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> > >>>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
> > >>>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> > >>>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> > >>>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
> > >>>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
> > >>>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
> > >>>>>> already believed.
> > >>>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
> > >>>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
> > >>>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
> > >>> Er, no.
> > >> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>
> > > You really are funny
>
> > If you think so, rupie, that's your business.
>
> > >>>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
> > >>>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
> > >>>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
> > >>>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
> > >>>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
> > >>>> ever doing that.
> > >>> You don't know anything whatsoever
> > >> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
> > >> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>
> > > "Whatsoever" is
>
> > Pretentious and pompous; the mark of an intellectually
> > insecure dilettante. It suits you perfectly.
>
> > >> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
> > >> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
> > >> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
> > >> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
> > >> voluntary, repeated participation.
>
> > > There are a lot of things you *think* you know
>
> > I know that you will for the rest of your life
> > actively, knowingly, voluntarily, repeatedly and
> > needlessly participate in processes that kill animals.
> > That's what I and every other person who posts here
> > knows.
>
> No, you don't know that

Yes, we certainly do know it, rupie.


> > >>> No, I'm afraid not.
> > >> Wrong.
>
> > > The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> > > view is correct,
>
> > Bogus.
>
> Then refute it.

Done, quite a while back.

On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>
> > >>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> > >>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> > >>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> > >>> Um, no,
> > >> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>
> > > You really have no idea how funny this is
>
> > Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> > bet I do.
>
> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> reality

That's you all right, rupie.


> It's really not a very hard point to grasp

It sure isn't, you psycho.

On Jun 5, 10:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 12:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>news:1180664666.067600.58170@d30g2000p rg.googlegroups.com...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> he gives.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
> > > >>>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
> > > >>>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> > > >>>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
> > > >>>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> > > >>>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> > > >>>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
> > > >>>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
> > > >>>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
> > > >>>>>> already believed.
> > > >>>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
> > > >>>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
> > > >>>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
> > > >>> Er, no.
> > > >> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>
> > > > You really are funny
>
> > > If you think so, rupie, that's your business.
>
> > > >>>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
> > > >>>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
> > > >>>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
> > > >>>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
> > > >>>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
> > > >>>> ever doing that.
> > > >>> You don't know anything whatsoever
> > > >> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
> > > >> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>
> > > > "Whatsoever" is
>
> > > Pretentious and pompous; the mark of an intellectually
> > > insecure dilettante. It suits you perfectly.
>
> > > >> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
> > > >> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
> > > >> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
> > > >> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
> > > >> voluntary, repeated participation.
>
> > > > There are a lot of things you *think* you know
>
> > > I know that you will for the rest of your life
> > > actively, knowingly, voluntarily, repeatedly and
> > > needlessly participate in processes that kill animals.
> > > That's what I and every other person who posts here
> > > knows.
>
> > No, you don't know that
>
> Yes, we certainly do know it, rupie.
>

It must be so, the voices in your head tell you so.

> > > >>> No, I'm afraid not.
> > > >> Wrong.
>
> > > > The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
> > > > view is correct,
>
> > > Bogus.
>
> > Then refute it.
>
> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
>

So show me where.

On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>
> > > >>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> > > >>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> > > >>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> > > >>> Um, no,
> > > >> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>
> > > > You really have no idea how funny this is
>
> > > Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> > > bet I do.
>
> > "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> > reality
>
> That's you all right, rupie.
>

Funny clown.

> > It's really not a very hard point to grasp
>
> It sure isn't, you psycho.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 10:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 12:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:20 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he gives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>>>>>>>>>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
>>>>>>>>>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
>>>>>>>>>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
>>>>>>>>>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
>>>>>>>>>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
>>>>>>>>>> already believed.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
>>>>>>>>> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]
>>>>>>>> I've documented it many times, rupie.
>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - yes.
>>>>> You really are funny
>>>> If you think so, rupie, that's your business.
>>>>>>>> You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
>>>>>>>> have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
>>>>>>>> you have time to get started raising your own food and
>>>>>>>> getting away from participation in animal-killing
>>>>>>>> processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
>>>>>>>> ever doing that.
>>>>>>> You don't know anything whatsoever
>>>>>> No one rational uses "whatsoever", rupie, you
>>>>>> semi-literate ****wit - "whatever". That's the word.
>>>>> "Whatsoever" is
>>>> Pretentious and pompous; the mark of an intellectually
>>>> insecure dilettante. It suits you perfectly.
>>>>>> Anyway, you're wrong. I *do* know that you have zero
>>>>>> intention, or ability, to make the jump. You'll always
>>>>>> participate in the killing of animals. Not "mere
>>>>>> financial support", rupie - *active*, knowing,
>>>>>> voluntary, repeated participation.
>>>>> There are a lot of things you *think* you know
>>>> I know that you will for the rest of your life
>>>> actively, knowingly, voluntarily, repeatedly and
>>>> needlessly participate in processes that kill animals.
>>>> That's what I and every other person who posts here
>>>> knows.
>>> No, you don't know that
>> Yes, we certainly do know it, rupie.
>>
>
> It must be so

No, but it *is* so.


>>>>>>> No, I'm afraid not.
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> The difference is, I have offered reasoning explaining why my point of
>>>>> view is correct,
>>>> Bogus.
>>> Then refute it.
>> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> So show me where.

Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
to waste mine.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>>>>>> Um, no,
>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
>>>> bet I do.
>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
>>> reality
>> That's you all right, rupie.
>>
>
> Funny

No, sad.


>>> It's really not a very hard point to grasp
>> It sure isn't, you psycho.

On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>

Not one of your best efforts, Ball.

> >>> Then refute it.
> >> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > So show me where.
>
> Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
> to waste mine.

True. You waste your time of your own accord, shooting your mouth off
on usenet, making a joke out of yourself, snipping everything you
can't respond to, and making patently false statements which you can't
back up.

On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
> >>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>>>>>> Um, no,
> >>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
> >>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
> >>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> >>>> bet I do.
> >>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> >>> reality
> >> That's you all right, rupie.
>
> > Funny
>
> No, sad.
>

Fair enough. A tragic farce, maybe.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>
> Not one of your best efforts

Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.


>>>>> Then refute it.
>>>> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
>>> So show me where.
>> Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
>> to waste mine.
>
> True.

So go waste your own time instead of futilely trying to
sound witty, ****wit nerd boy.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
>>>>>> bet I do.
>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
>>>>> reality
>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
>>> Funny
>> No, sad.
>>
>
> Fair enough.

Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.

On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > Not one of your best efforts
>
> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>

What was the task at hand?

You mean all this farcical babbling is actually supposed to have a
point?

> >>>>> Then refute it.
> >>>> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> So show me where.
> >> Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
> >> to waste mine.
>
> > True.
>
> So go waste your own time instead of futilely trying to
> sound witty, ****wit nerd boy.

I am wasting my own time, farcically giving you credit for be able to
argue your absurdities.

If it was such a futile attempt at wit, why did you feel the need to
snip it?

On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
> >>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>>>>>>>> Um, no,
> >>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
> >>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
> >>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> >>>>>> bet I do.
> >>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> >>>>> reality
> >>>> That's you all right, rupie.
> >>> Funny
> >> No, sad.
>
> > Fair enough.
>
> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.

I don't lead a sad life. We were talking about you, you silly man. The
original remark was "Funny clown". That was about you. You replied
"No, sad". So you were presumably trying to claim that there was a
tragic aspect to your farcical ranting.

It's very amusing your calling me "mentally ****ed up".

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>> Not one of your best efforts
>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>>
>
> What was the task at hand?

Accurately describing you.


>>>>>>> Then refute it.
>>>>>> Done, quite a while back.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> So show me where.
>>>> Waste your own time, rupie, you ****wad - you don't get
>>>> to waste mine.
>>> True.
>> So go waste your own time instead of futilely trying to
>> sound witty, ****wit nerd boy.
>
> I am wasting my own time

You'll waste *only* your time, boy.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
>>>>>>>> bet I do.
>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
>>>>> Funny
>>>> No, sad.
>>> Fair enough.
>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
>
> I don't lead a sad life.

You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.

On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>> Not one of your best efforts
> >> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>
> > What was the task at hand?
>
> Accurately describing you.
>

Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> Not one of your best efforts
>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>>> What was the task at hand?
>> Accurately describing you.
>>
>
> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.

That, too. **** off.

On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
> >>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
> >>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
> >>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> >>>>>>>> bet I do.
> >>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> >>>>>>> reality
> >>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
> >>>>> Funny
> >>>> No, sad.
> >>> Fair enough.
> >> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
> >> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
>
> > I don't lead a sad life.
>
> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.

Well, you think so. I can certainly live with that.

Seriously, this idea you've got that I'm demented and psychotic is one
of many examples of quite absurdly irrational thinking on your part.
I'm not in the least mentally ill. You've got poor reality-testing
skills, anger management problems, and are poorly socialized, but I'm
fine. I told you that I had two psychotic episodes a number of years
ago, and ever since then you've been convinced that I'm "a psychotic
menace to society". You think that, when I point out that you've got
anger management problems, you can score a point by referring to the
fact that I've had psychotic episodes in the past. (Actually, what you
did is incorrectly state that I'm psychotic). It's completely absurd.
That is why I call you a funny clown.

rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
>>>>>>>>>> bet I do.
>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
>>>>>>> Funny
>>>>>> No, sad.
>>>>> Fair enough.
>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
>>> I don't lead a sad life.
>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.
>
> Well, you think so.

Everyone does, gasbag.

On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> > On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> Not one of your best efforts
> >>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
> >>> What was the task at hand?
> >> Accurately describing you.
>
> > Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.
>
> That, too.

Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand.
That's why I said it wasn't one of your best efforts.


> **** off.

There, there, settle down. I know it must be frustrating that I'm so
much better than you, but why don't you try to do something
constructive about the situation, like becoming a decent human being?

On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> >>>>>>>>>> bet I do.
> >>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> >>>>>>>>> reality
> >>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
> >>>>>>> Funny
> >>>>>> No, sad.
> >>>>> Fair enough.
> >>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
> >>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
> >>> I don't lead a sad life.
> >> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.
>
> > Well, you think so.
>
> Everyone does, gasbag.

You mean everyone's a pitiful deluded loon like you? No, I don't think
so. There may be a few others like you.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>>>> Not one of your best efforts
>>>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
>>>>> What was the task at hand?
>>>> Accurately describing you.
>>> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.
>> That, too.
>
> Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand.

Yes, it was.


>> **** off.
>
> There, there,

**** off, rupie, you argumentative narcissistic ****.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
>>>>>>>>>>>> bet I do.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
>>>>>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
>>>>>>>>> Funny
>>>>>>>> No, sad.
>>>>>>> Fair enough.
>>>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
>>>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
>>>>> I don't lead a sad life.
>>>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.
>>> Well, you think so.
>> Everyone does, gasbag.
>
> You mean everyone's

No, I mean everyone thinks you lead a sad, demented,
psychotic life, gasbag.

On Jun 5, 4:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>> Not one of your best efforts
> >>>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy.
> >>>>> What was the task at hand?
> >>>> Accurately describing you.
> >>> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence.
> >> That, too.
>
> > Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand.
>
> Yes, it was.
>

Not at all. I wasn't in the least offended. I was amused, I thought it
was a pretty lame and desperate attempt at an insult. Of course, yet
again you've decided you'll delude yourself into thinking that I'm
lying. Fine.

On Jun 5, 4:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
>
> >>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bet I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of
> >>>>>>>>>>> reality
> >>>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>> Funny
> >>>>>>>> No, sad.
> >>>>>>> Fair enough.
> >>>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I
> >>>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought.
> >>>>> I don't lead a sad life.
> >>>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life.
> >>> Well, you think so.
> >> Everyone does, gasbag.
>
> > You mean everyone's
>
> No, I mean everyone thinks you lead a sad, demented,
> psychotic life, gasbag.

But only a pitiful, deluded loon like you would think that, Ball.
You're not being logical.