|
vicarious moral responsibility
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his CD footprint because he has never measured. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 7, 9:32*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > CD footprint because he has never measured. Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has these elements: - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. - You are an active participant - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other humans - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any legitimate goal. You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by your activity. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 7, 9:32*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is not a "legitimate goal". |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 07/03/2012 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
> "glen" He shares > moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. Yes it can. St. Derek disputed it rationally and took you out. > His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food Stop killing humans with your tailpipe hypocrite. They have a right not to be killed by you. Start believing in your own bullshit first and maybe others might take you seriously. Note to St. Derek. 1. How the **** can you respect this guy? 2. *WHAT* the **** can I learn from him? 3. Decent? What the ****? 4. Honest? What the ****? 5. Intelligent? **** no. Yep, Rupert is very smart and inquisitive and you regret a lot of stuff you've said to him because he's a decent but no way is Ball smarter than him!!! How the **** can I stick with Ball and learn stuff I never thought existed? He's a **** end of. > > "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral > responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living > a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > CD footprint because he has never measured. |
vicarious moral responsibility
Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?
|
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > these elements: > > - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > - You are an active participant > > - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > humans > > - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > legitimate goal. > > You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > your activity. Yep - I never denied it, either. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 4:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > *wrote: > >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >> * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >> * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > > Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > > these elements: > > > * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > > * - You are an active participant > > > * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > > injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > > humans > > > * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > > legitimate goal. > > > You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > > to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > > your activity. > > Yep - I never denied it, either. Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? If that takes place, do you agree that it constitutes a rights violation? |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> > > If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to > buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. > I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you > would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is > not a "legitimate goal". You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the consequences of your choice. You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief system of "veganism" is false. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 5:35 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 20:32, George Plimpton wrote: >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. > > Yes it can. Nope - not rationally; only by bullshitting. >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > Stop killing humans with You cause animals to die. You are morally responsible. Your belief about your moral stance is false. >> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >> CD footprint because he has never measured. > |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen? Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen. Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04 January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host, "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but that's an easy scam. If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>> these elements: >> >>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>> - You are an active participant >> >>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>> humans >> >>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>> legitimate goal. >> >>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>> your activity. >> >> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 5:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>> * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>> * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>> these elements: > > >>> * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>> * *- You are an active participant > > >>> * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>> humans > > >>> * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>> legitimate goal. > > >>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>> your activity. > > >> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > > Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > > humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > > anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. I don't know what belief you are talking about, and it would be really great if you could just answer the questions. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 4:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > *wrote: > >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >> * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >> * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > > If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to > > buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. > > So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. > > > I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you > > would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is > > not a "legitimate goal". > > You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the > consequences of your choice. > > You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause > zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the > false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits > in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are > not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your > conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief > system of "veganism" is false. No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the harm that I cause, and I never made either of those claims. I claimed that I am doing just about everything within my power without making major disruptions in my life - making every reasonable effort, as I frequently have put it in the past - to reduce the amount of harm that I cause, just as you claim that you are making every reasonable effort to reduce the externalities you impose on others through your contributions to environmental degradation. Even if you think that these externalities will never cause any premature deaths, which is actually highly unlikely, you cannot avoid the conclusion that they involve violations of property rights. You are engaging in activities which you know full well contribute to processes which will lead to violations of other people's property rights. And you are responding to the situation in the same way as me, you are not doing literally everything within your power to avoid engaging in the activities, but merely making every reasonable effort to reduce the harm they cause. You do not claim that you are doing literally everything within your power, you claim that you are making every reasonable effort, and this is correct (for all I know). Likewise I do not claim that I am doing literally everything within my power and never have, but I have claimed that I am making every reasonable effort, in the sense that I am doing just about everything I can without making major disruptions to my life to reduce the amount of suffering caused by my diet. The two cases are analogous. It should also be noted that by remaining employed I thereby gain opportunities to alleviate suffering in other ways which would not otherwise be available to me. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>> these elements: >> >>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>> humans >> >>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>> your activity. >> >>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > I don't know what belief you are talking about, The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to >>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. >> >> So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. >> >>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you >>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is >>> not a "legitimate goal". >> >> You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the >> consequences of your choice. >> >> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause >> zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the >> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits >> in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are >> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your >> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief >> system of "veganism" is false. > > No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally > everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the > harm that I cause Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote: >> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen? > >Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen. It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic. >Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04 >January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone >number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his >level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one >person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through >eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host, >"eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but >that's an easy scam. > >If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become. Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about her being a horse trader? |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George > wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote: >>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen? >> >> Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen. > > It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet > back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said > about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered > that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic. > >> Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04 >> January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone >> number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his >> level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one >> person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through >> eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host, >> "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but >> that's an easy scam. >> >> If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become. > > Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably > a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a > go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly > for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It > could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come > back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it > wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent > to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about > her being a horse trader? It didn't get to the threats of violence that came from Lesley's former sperm donor in his very first posts, so I don't think it's him. It didn't have the lachrymose hysteria of a Slater post. It was a bit too nasty to be a GregGeorge post, I reckon. Whoever was the "Lesley" half made a point of looking into my Facebook account and seeing something there that was never posted on my "wall" - something which has already been obsoleted, too. I agree that it seemed far too aggressive, too easily, to be either Lesley Simon or Karen. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 5:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>> * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>> * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>> these elements: > > >>>>> * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>>>> * * - You are an active participant > > >>>>> * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>>>> humans > > >>>>> * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>>>> legitimate goal. > > >>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>>>> your activity. > > >>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > >>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > >>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > >>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > >> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > >> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > >> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > > I don't know what belief you are talking about, > > The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically > required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to > one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar. I don't believe either of those things. You know that I have said in the past that I would be prepared to countenance the consumption of some animal products if I were satisfied that their production caused no more harm than the production of plant-based food, and that Derek responded to this by emailing my friend Angie and saying that I should not be on the committee of Animal Liberation NSW (which I wasn't, I was merely a voting member). Also, I have explicitly pointed out in the past that I don't think that refraining from eating animal products necessarily makes one ethically superior to someone who does eat animal products, because that is not the only dimension along which moral conduct can be assessed. As is often the case, you simply fail to represent my beliefs correctly. Now, as I say, it would be really great if you could just answer the questions. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>> * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>> * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to > >>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. > > >> So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. > > >>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you > >>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is > >>> not a "legitimate goal". > > >> You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the > >> consequences of your choice. > > >> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause > >> zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the > >> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits > >> in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are > >> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your > >> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief > >> system of "veganism" is false. > > > No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally > > everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the > > harm that I cause > > Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required. That obviously does not follow. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. > > I don't believe either of those things. You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe the second. Both are false. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to >>>>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. >> >>>> So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. >> >>>>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you >>>>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is >>>>> not a "legitimate goal". >> >>>> You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the >>>> consequences of your choice. >> >>>> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause >>>> zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the >>>> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits >>>> in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are >>>> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your >>>> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief >>>> system of "veganism" is false. >> >>> No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally >>> everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the >>> harm that I cause >> >> Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required. > > That obviously does not follow. It does. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 6:59*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>>>> * * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>>>> * * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>>>> these elements: > > >>>>>>> * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 8, 7:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>> * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>> * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to > >>>>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. > > >>>> So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have. > > >>>>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you > >>>>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is > >>>>> not a "legitimate goal". > > >>>> You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the > >>>> consequences of your choice. > > >>>> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause > >>>> zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the > >>>> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits > >>>> in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are > >>>> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your > >>>> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief > >>>> system of "veganism" is false. > > >>> No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally > >>> everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the > >>> harm that I cause > > >> Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required. > > > That obviously does not follow. > > It does. Why do you think it follows? |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >>>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. >> >>> I don't believe either of those things. >> >> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe >> the second. Both are false. > > What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living > in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some > effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that > needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been > known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I > acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as > a "reasonable effort", Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 9, 8:05*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>>>>>> these elements: > > >>>>>>>>> * * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>>>>>>>> * * * - You are an active participant > > >>>>>>>>> * * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>>>>>>>> humans > > >>>>>>>>> * * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. > > >>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>>>>>>>> your activity. > > >>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > >>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > >>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > >>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > >>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > >>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > >>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > >>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, > > >>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically > >>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to > >>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar. > > >>> I don't believe either of those things. > > >> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe > >> the second. *Both are false. > > > What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living > > in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some > > effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that > > needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been > > known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I > > acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as > > a "reasonable effort", > > Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering > about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. It is obviously false that I have done nothing. I have clearly done something. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>>>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >>>>>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. >> >>>>> I don't believe either of those things. >> >>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe >>>> the second. Both are false. >> >>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living >>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some >>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that >>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been >>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I >>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as >>> a "reasonable effort", >> >> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering >> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. > > It is obviously false that I have done nothing. It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 9, 8:48*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>>>>>>>> these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- You are an active participant > > >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>>>>>>>>>> humans > > >>>>>>>>>>> * * * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>>>>>>>>>> your activity. > > >>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > >>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > >>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > >>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > >>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > >>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > >>>>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > >>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, > > >>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically > >>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to > >>>>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar. > > >>>>> I don't believe either of those things. > > >>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe > >>>> the second. *Both are false. > > >>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living > >>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some > >>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that > >>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been > >>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I > >>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as > >>> a "reasonable effort", > > >> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering > >> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you.. > > > It is obviously false that I have done nothing. > > It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. You strike me as being a very irrational person. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>>>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>>>>>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >>>>>>>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. >> >>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things. >> >>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe >>>>>> the second. Both are false. >> >>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living >>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some >>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that >>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been >>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I >>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as >>>>> a "reasonable effort", >> >>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering >>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. >> >>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing. >> >> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. > > You strike me as being a very irrational person. No. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On Mar 9, 5:14*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * - You are an active participant > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> humans > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > >>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > >>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > >>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > >>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > >>>>>>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > >>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, > > >>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically > >>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to > >>>>>>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar. > > >>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things. > > >>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe > >>>>>> the second. *Both are false. > > >>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living > >>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some > >>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that > >>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been > >>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I > >>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as > >>>>> a "reasonable effort", > > >>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering > >>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. > > >>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing. > > >> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. > > > You strike me as being a very irrational person. > > No. Really? So presumably your claim is that you strike me as being quite a rational person when you assert that I have done nothing directed towards reducing the amount of suffering required to produce my food? |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>>>>>>>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >>>>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >>>>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >>>>>>>>>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. >> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things. >> >>>>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe >>>>>>>> the second. Both are false. >> >>>>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living >>>>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some >>>>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that >>>>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been >>>>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I >>>>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as >>>>>>> a "reasonable effort", >> >>>>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering >>>>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. >> >>>>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing. >> >>>> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. >> >>> You strike me as being a very irrational person. >> >> No. > > Really? Really. |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- You are an active participant > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some > >>>>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake > >>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't > >>>>>>>>>>>> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, > > >>>>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically > >>>>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to > >>>>>>>>>> one who doesn't. *That belief, you ****ing liar. > > >>>>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things. > > >>>>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe > >>>>>>>> the second. *Both are false. > > >>>>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living > >>>>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some > >>>>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that > >>>>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been > >>>>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I > >>>>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as > >>>>>>> a "reasonable effort", > > >>>>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering > >>>>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. > > >>>>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing. > > >>>> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. > > >>> You strike me as being a very irrational person. > > >> No. > > > Really? > > Really. So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, Ball. You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that need to take place in order to produce my food. And I, while aware of this, think of you as a rational person. That's a correct paraphrase of your worldview, yes? |
vicarious moral responsibility
On 3/10/2012 6:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > wrote: >> On 3/10/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/9/2012 5:02 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 9, 8:48 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2012 11:30 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:05 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 10:45 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:59 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these elements: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are an active participant >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate goal. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your activity. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically >>>>>>>>>>>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to >>>>>>>>>>>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe either of those things. >> >>>>>>>>>> You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe >>>>>>>>>> the second. Both are false. >> >>>>>>>>> What I believe is that it is morally required, for most people living >>>>>>>>> in modern agriculturally bountiful societies, anyway, to make some >>>>>>>>> effort to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death that >>>>>>>>> needs to be caused in order to produce their food. In fact I've been >>>>>>>>> known to say they should make "every reasonable effort" although I >>>>>>>>> acknowledge I have not offered any useful definition of what counts as >>>>>>>>> a "reasonable effort", >> >>>>>>>> Of course you haven't, because you, yourself, do nothing, so blabbering >>>>>>>> about "reasonable effort" would be rather leaden irony coming from you. >> >>>>>>> It is obviously false that I have done nothing. >> >>>>>> It is quite obviously *true* that you have done nothing. >> >>>>> You strike me as being a very irrational person. >> >>>> No. >> >>> Really? >> >> Really. > > So let me be absolutely clear about your worldview, George. Have a go at it. > > You deny that, in going vegan, I was making some effort to reduce the > amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures that > need to take place in order to produce my food. Yes, because you really had no idea if it was going to make a difference or not, because you hadn't counted, and you never did investigate the CD counts for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish or any other changes you might have made instead. You just *assumed*, on the basis of no evidence and also knowing *nothing* about CDs at the time that you made your switch, that not putting animal parts in your mouth would automatically mean you weren't killing any animals. You've said repeatedly that you knew as an adolescent before making the switch that crop farming caused CDs. I just don't believe you. My own adolescence is pretty far behind me, but I'm around a pretty good number of adolescents now, and none - not a single one - have that precocious sort of awareness of the world that one would need. They're kids, and kids don't think that way. We've talked about this before, how some bright people grossly and grotesquely overstate how aware they were when they were younger. It's just bullshit. |
greggeorge/"zakhar"/"mark"/"glen" ( vicarious moral responsibility)
On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George > wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote: >>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen? >> >> Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen. > > It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet > back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said > about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered > that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic. > >> Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04 >> January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone >> number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his >> level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one >> person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through >> eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host, >> "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but >> that's an easy scam. >> >> If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become. > > Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably > a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a > go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly > for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It > could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come > back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it > wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent > to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about > her being a horse trader? It was greggeorge, better known as that snarky little shitworm "zakhar". The fact that he stalked me and looked up recent stuff about me in Facebook and the like is the key. |
greggeorge/"zakhar"/"mark"/"glen" ( vicarious moral responsibility)
On 3/21/2012 12:42 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:08:00 -0700, George > > wrote: > >> On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote: >>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George > wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote: >>>>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen? >>>> >>>> Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen. >>> >>> It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet >>> back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said >>> about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered >>> that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic. >>> >>>> Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04 >>>> January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone >>>> number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his >>>> level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one >>>> person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through >>>> eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host, >>>> "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but >>>> that's an easy scam. >>>> >>>> If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become. >>> >>> Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably >>> a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a >>> go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly >>> for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It >>> could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come >>> back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it >>> wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent >>> to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about >>> her being a horse trader? >> >> It was greggeorge, better known as that snarky little shitworm "zakhar". >> The fact that he stalked me and looked up recent stuff about me in >> Facebook and the like is the key. > > Whoever it was sent me an encrypted email through hushmail. > > has sent you a secure email using > Hushmail. To read it, please visit the following web page: > > https://www.hushmail.com/express/NRTYR2PC ] > > It's not available now. [Unknown message code: NRTYR2PC] > > Following the link I was asked, "george plimtons first name?" After > answering in small case (3rd attempt) I was able to read and respond > to the email. Whoever it was who misspelled 'plimton' asked why I > still bothered with a.a.e.v. and what I get out of it. Whoever it was > is a keen admirer of our friend Rupert and wants me to stop hounding > him and all the other aras out of a.a.e.v. and to concentrate all my > efforts on you instead. That sounds like Karen to me, although it > could be Lesley. The only way this could be Karen would be if she had another nervous breakdown like she did back in 2000. She left a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. all weepy, but returned some time later like a rabid pit bull dog. > I told whoever it was that I'd gone into > semi-retirement from the group a long time ago, and that I > occasionally went after Rupert because I didn't like his latest > position as a 'new welfarist.' > > If you go up the thread to find "Note to St. Derek" you'll see some of > the remarks I made about him, and you, and, as is usual when sending > private messages to Lesley, some of those remarks were copied and > pasted here. I've removed my email address now so that this sort of > thing doesn't happen again. > > How can you tell that someone was looking at your facebook page? > Did they leave any cryptic messages on your wall? It was whoever was posting as "Lesley" back in early January. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...05efbed33627b2 In the message, he/she/it made reference to a recent change of house, and said she found the info on Facebook, including a reference to a street address. I never posted any of that on a wall, only in some private messages that only the Facebook user can see. Whoever it is knows details about my family. greggeorge used to do searches for me and post stuff he found. > > Note to Glen. > > 1) Nice try, but no damage done. > 2) Get off your lazy arse and do your own work if you want > something done to "reverse the situation." > 3) I come and go as I please without any prompting from you > or anyone. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter