Animal Rights Community Online :: View topic

Animal Rights Community Online
Our mission is to Preserve, Promote and Advance respect for animals by discussing animal rights strategy and philosophy as well as encouraging the removal of animal usage from our diets and consumption. This by encouraging a pure vegetarian diet and a vegan lifestyle.

Gallery

Calendar

Vegan Chat ARCO's Blogs summary page

Blogs

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

You have no new messages

Log out [ David Olivier ]


You last visited on Today, at 3:06 am The time now is Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:11 pm All times are UTC + 1	View posts since last visit View unanswered posts View your posts Calendar

Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk

Joan Dunayer
Moderators: Sharon

Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

Gary L. Francione
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 104

benio wrote:

Indeed, all these interventions of yours here and there, to slander the people in the movement for the abolition of meat and to misrepresent their strategy, show that you are simply trying to hold back dangerous political rivals.

You're right. You caught me. I regard as "dangerous political rivals" people who think that someone who does not eat foie gras but eats all other flesh and animal products is a "vegetarian regarding foie gras."

benio wrote:

If your main interest was theory and advancement, you would have been glad to meet other people interested in discussion on theoretical and strategical issues. Unfortunately, it is clear that it is not so and that you have a different political agenda - an autocratic agenda, if I may say so.

I did. I tried to engage you and the other "abolition of meat" people on your blog. It became very clear very quickly that with the exception of Estiva Reus, the rest of you were incapable of having an intelligent or intelligible discussion. Indeed, I find it difficult to think of people who are more conceptually confused than you, Olivier, and Comiti.

benio wrote:

And, your obsession for copyright is curious. I find it contradictory. If, as you say, all the animal people and all organizations except for you and those who strictly adhere to your ideas are welfarist, why are you so obsessed with protecting your writings? If all other existing theoretical and political currents are "welfarist", they cannot be interested in stealing "abolitionist" theories, isn't it?

I have no idea of what you are talking about; but then, neither do you.

benio wrote:

As for me, you have nothing to fear about: as I said in my answer to Karin, your Idealistic "abolitionist" theory does not interest me. Nor does your primacy in "discovering" that revolution is other than reformism.

Oh, good. I was worried. Thanks.

GLF

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:20 am

Mark this post and the followings unread

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 31

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

benio wrote:

(T)here are some objections that I made there about the "property-status theory" which still stands unanswered. I will open a new thread for restarting that discussion, because I'm really interested in it.

I see. You are interested in the "property-status-theory" but not in Gary Francione's "idealistic 'abolitionist' theory" (which in addition to being idealistic and abolitionist is "burgeois"). That is going to be an interesting "discussion", indeed. Good luck. David Burn and Hoss Firooznia certainly can't wait for it. As far as I'm concerned, count me out. If you and Olivier are planning an ideological take-over of this board, and the moderators are OK with that, it's a good job nobody can be force-fed with your anit-abolitionist propaganda.

Goodbye, Benio.

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:25 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I have never claimed to be the first person to articulate the notion that veganism means the abolition of all animal products.

So much the better.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

What I added to that discussion, beginning in the early 1990s, was that the abolition of animal use would not, for a variety of social, political, legal, philosophical, and economic reasons, be achieved through the regulatory reform that is promoted by virtually every animal organization, whether in the U.S., U.K., or Europe.

The debate over whether a radical change can be achieved through step-by-step reform is commonplace in practically every social movement that has existed, at least in recent centuries. It would have been incredible if in the animal rights movement no one had come to explain that what we need is a radical change, not incremental reform.

When I and two others interviewed Tom Regan in November 1991 in Milan, he said (see here):

Tom Regan wrote:

Le mouvement des droits des animaux est un mouvement abolitionniste ; notre but n'est pas d'élargir les cages, mais de faire qu'elles soient vides. Mais parmi les personnes qui ont ces buts, qui se définissent comme militant pour les droits des animaux et donc comme distincts de ceux qui militent pour le bien-être des animaux, beaucoup ont dépensé énormément d'énergie à lutter pour des réformes. Leur raisonnement a été : on ne pourra faire cesser la vivisection du jour au lendemain, et donc il faut travailler à obtenir telle ou telle réforme ; le pays ne deviendra pas végétarien demain matin, donc il faut travailler pour les poules en batterie, etc.

Je pense qu'ils ont tort.Il n'y a aucune donnée empirique, historique, qui suggère qu'on se débarrasse de quelque chose en commençant par la réformer.

It's too late an hour for me to translate back to English, but he was speaking of empty cages as opposed to bigger cages, and about animal activists being wrong in hoping that incremental change will bring about the abolition of exploitation.

So I don't exactly see what was new in your "additions to the discussion”.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I may be mistaken, and I would greatly appreciate your correcting me if I am wrong here, but I do not think that any French writer articulated such a position in 1989 or at any other previous time.

You are right, since Tom Regan is not a French writer.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Moreover, with respect to my theory on the status of nonhumans as chattel property, I do not think that any French or German theorist has proposed the view that the property status of nonhumans means that animal interests will be protected only to the extent that there is an economic value for humans.

Just about everyone recognizes that chattel slavery is not a good thing for the protection of the interests of the slaves. There even was a war fought over that in the US in the 1860s.

That we shouldn't call animals our property is a perfectly commonplace observation in the animal movement, just as in any other movement. In French, the word for wife is the same as the word for woman; a man will typically say “ma femme” (my wife, my woman) of his wife. I remember already in the seventies feminists protested that, and antisexist husbands shunned the expression "ma femme". Animal activists, likewise, shun the use of terms such as “the owner of the cat”. And I really don't think that they waited for you to come around to have that idea. Another example is PETA's "are not ours to eat, etc." slogan. Not ours means not our property. Did they lift that from you?

What perhaps is original in your views is the amount of emphasis you put on the issue of property status. Perhaps that is a positive contribution. But I think you go much too far, making the property status of animals the root of all evil. I don't think that makes sense. Abolishing the property status of animals doesn't even imply abolishing hunting!

Gary L. Francione wrote:

That is, the interests of animals as economic commodities have no intrinisic or inherent value; their value is only extrinsic or conditional.

That seems to be only a fancy rephrasing of the same thing.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I have also argued that animal welfare laws failed in the same way that slave welfare laws failed.

Yes, we have seen Tom Regan argue that too, in 1991.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

To the extent that you think that this position is any way reflected by the poster that states "Ma chair m'appartient," then I believe that you are dreaming.

Well, that poster does deny that animals are property, and call for the abolition of their property status. I think that is rather clear.

What did you say was your landbreaking contribution?

David

_________________
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:34 am

Gary L. Francione
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 104

Re: Olivier's Ignorance of Basic Philosophy

David Olivier wrote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I have never claimed to be the first person to articulate the notion that veganism means the abolition of all animal products.

So much the better.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Tom Regan wrote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I may be mistaken, and I would greatly appreciate your correcting me if I am wrong here, but I do not think that any French writer articulated such a position in 1989 or at any other previous time.

You are right, since Tom Regan is not a French writer.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

That is, the interests of animals as economic commodities have no intrinisic or inherent value; their value is only extrinsic or conditional.

That seems to be only a fancy rephrasing of the same thing.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I have also argued that animal welfare laws failed in the same way that slave welfare laws failed.

Yes, we have seen Tom Regan argue that too, in 1991.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

To the extent that you think that this position is any way reflected by the poster that states "Ma chair m'appartient," then I believe that you are dreaming.

Well, that poster does deny that animals are property, and call for the abolition of their property status. I think that is rather clear.

What did you say was your landbreaking contribution?

David

Please forgive me, but discussing philosophy with you is like talking about quantum theory with a clam. You may be sentient, but your cognitive abilities are wanting.

For the record, Tom Regan described my theory about the property status of animals as of "unquestionable historic importance the likes of which the world of ideas has never seen before: profound in its conception, execution, and its possible consequences." Regan had this to say about my analysis of new welfarism (the notion that regulatory change would lead to abolition): "No other scholarly observer of the animal movement has seen this movement’s lack of a consistent ideology as clearly as Francione. . . . Francione’s book represents a quantum leap forward in every respect by which anyone might reasonably measure an understanding of both the ideology of animal rights and what this movement can and should be."

In the thread, "Should we march with the vegetarians?," you clearly demonstrated your profound ignorance of basic philosophy. You quoted my recent article in Cahiers antispécistes, in which I wrote:

Quote:

Actually, as I explained previously, the equal consideration of the interests of animals, that is seen by utilitarians as the goal of the movement for animal welfare, will be impossible to respect as long as animals remain the property of humans. (Retranslated from French)

You stated:

Quote:

...and at the same time insisting that those welfarist utilitarians don't want to abolish the property status of animals. If the goal of the animal welfare movement is the equal consideration of the interests of animals, and if that goal can be attained only by abolishing the property status of animals, it follows that the abolition of the property status of animals is among the goals of the animal welfare movement.

You remarkably failed to understand a central point of the article that the utilitarians do not advocate the abolition of the property status of animals and, as a result, animals will never receive equal consideration for their interests because their interests will necessarily be judged to be of lesser weight than the interests of humans who have property rights in nonhumans. Your statement that the abolition of property status is among the goals of the animal welfare movement shows your ignorance of the animal welfare position. Read Singer or any of the utilitarians. They certainly do not advocate that we abolish the property status of animals. On the contrary. Singer, for example, does not believe that nonhumans have an interest in not being used for human purposes; they only have an interest in living a reasonably pleasant life and experiencing a relatively painless death. Therefore, nonhumans do not care that we use them as property, but care only about how we use them as property. Singer thinks that we can still accord equal consideration to animal interests even if they are property. I argue in that article that he is in error. Moreover, the utilitarians are, with few exceptions, act utilitarians and not rule utilitarians, and act utilitarians cannot as a general matter maintain that institutions (as opposed to particular acts) do not satisfy the principle of utility.

I would have excused your inability to understand the article if it were written in English. But it was written in French. You have no excuse other than a profound ignorance of basic philosophy.

GLF

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:16 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

David Olivier wrote:

What did you say was your landbreaking contribution?

David

The question still stands.

David

_________________
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:34 am

Trevor
Animal Guardian

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

Karin wrote:

David Burn and Hoss Firooznia certainly can't wait for it.

Well, Goethe wasn't a vegan, nor yet a vegetarian. I have done what I can:

Drob ärgert' sich der andre sehr,
Und wollte gar nichts hören mehr,
Und sagt': es wüßte ein jedes Kind,
Daß in "Regen ohne Donner" anders stünd'.
Und ich behaglich unterdessen
Hätt einen Kürbis aufgefressen.

Und, wie nach Emmaus, weiter ging's
Mit Geist- und Feuerschritten,
Prophete rechts, Prophete links,
Das Weltkind in der Mitten.

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:20 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Please forgive me, but discussing philosophy with you is like talking about quantum theory with a clam. You may be sentient, but your cognitive abilities are wanting.

Gary, if your really had any serious answers to my points, you wouldn't resort to thundering “I'm big and you're small and I'm right and you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it!”

(You thunder, but do not reign. Very Happy

)

However much you may be a Professor and I a Nothing, you actually demonstrate a very surprising ignorance concerning one of the main currents of philosophy, utilitarianism.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

In the thread, "Should we march with the vegetarians?," you clearly demonstrated your profound ignorance of basic philosophy. You quoted my recent article in Cahiers antispécistes, in which I wrote:

Quote:

You stated:

Quote:

I happen to be a utilitarian; and I happen to advocate the abolition of the property status of animals. I don't know if Peter Singer does that, but utilitarianism is not a cult. So there is at least one utilitarian who opposes the property status of animals. That should be enough to give you an obligation to stop repeating that “utilitarians do not advocate the abolition of the property status of animals”.

Perhaps what you mean is that advocating the abolition of the property status of animals is logically incompatible with utilitarianism. How do you argue that? By noting that for a utilitarian, the property status of animals is not a problem in itself, independently of its consequences. You are right. If the property status of animals had no consequences, utilitarians would not care one bit about it. They care about consequences, in terms of how they impact the lives of sentient beings. They do not care about the property status of animals per se.

But in the real world, the property status of animals does have consequences. I largely agree with you when you say that the property status of animals is an obstacle to the equal consideration of their interests. I don't see it as an obstacle as absolute as you do, but as an important one. Since I am in favor of the equal consideration of the interests of animals, and since I believe that that is difficult or impossible to attain as long as animals remain property, I am in favor of the abolition of their property status. That seems plain, simple and intelligible to me. Tell me if you still find it hard to grasp, I'll try to explain over again.

Perhaps you find it hard to grasp because you have this really weird idea about utilitarians:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Moreover, the utilitarians are, with few exceptions, act utilitarians and not rule utilitarians, and act utilitarians cannot as a general matter maintain that institutions (as opposed to particular acts) do not satisfy the principle of utility.

It is ridiculous to say that act utilitarians cannot uphold or oppose institutions. To uphold an institution is a kind of act, and to abolish it too. The act of upholding or of abolishing an institution is, like any other act, to be judged by its consequences. If the institution of private property over animals has bad consequences, an utilitarian will favor abolishing it.

John Stuart Mill, a 19th century utilitarian you surely have heard about, said of that objection to utilitarianism that it was “as high a pitch as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy”. Utilitarianism (1871):

John Stuart Mill long ago wrote:

The proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality, does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another. Men really ought to leave off talking a kind of nonsense on this subject, which they would neither talk nor listen to on other matters of practical concernment. Nobody argues that the art of navigation is not founded on astronomy, because sailors cannot wait to calculate the Nautical Almanack. Being rational creatures, they go to sea with it ready calculated; and all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong, as well as on many of the far more difficult questions of wise and foolish. And this, as long as foresight is a human quality, it is to be presumed they will continue to do. Whatever we adopt as the fundamental principle of morality, we require subordinate principles to apply it by; the impossibility of doing without them, being common to all systems, can afford no argument against any one in particular; but gravely to argue as if no such secondary principles could be had, and as if mankind had remained till now, and always must remain, without drawing any general conclusions from the experience of human life, is as high a pitch, I think, as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy.

J.S. Mill also wrote a book called On Liberty, arguing that freedom of thought and of speech should always be upheld. Freedom of thought and of speech is an institution, you know. Mill made it very clear that he upheld that institution ultimately as a means for maximizing happiness. He upheld it on the basis of utilitarian principles — act-utilitarian ones, I don't think rule utilitarianism had been thought up at that time — but he upheld it very forcefully, and indeed that book is one of the most influential ones arguing for those freedoms.

You often actually even speak as if utilitarians not only did not oppose the property status of animals, but were actively in favor of maintaining it. You repeatedly try to make them appear as ardent supporters of animal exploitation. But if your absurd contention that utilitarians cannot oppose an institution had any merit, it would work both ways. Utilitarians could not either uphold any institution. You cannot eat your cake and have it. You know.

There would be a lot more to say on the issue of the property status of animals, on who does or does not oppose it, and on how significant it really is for the animal question. Benio and I have repeatedly given examples showing that the abolition of the property status of animals would not imply the abolition of all oppression of animals, to which you have answered exactly zero times, if I am not mistaken. I think it would be a good thing to open a separate thread on the issue, as suggested by Benio.

David

_________________
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:35 pm

Gary L. Francione
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 104

David Olivier wrote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Please forgive me, but discussing philosophy with you is like talking about quantum theory with a clam. You may be sentient, but your cognitive abilities are wanting.

)

However much you may be a Professor and I a Nothing, you actually demonstrate a very surprising ignorance concerning one of the main currents of philosophy, utilitarianism.

Gary L. Francione wrote:

In the thread, "Should we march with the vegetarians?," you clearly demonstrated your profound ignorance of basic philosophy. You quoted my recent article in Cahiers antispécistes, in which I wrote:

Quote:

You stated:

Quote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

John Stuart Mill long ago wrote:

I must apologize.

After reading your statements about utilitarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it would be easier to discuss quantum theory with a clam.

I am sorry if I offended any clams or other bivalve mollusks.

GLF

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:07 pm

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Gary, the question I put to you:

David Olivier wrote:

What did you say was your landbreaking contribution?

still stands.

David

_________________
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Yesterday, at 2:34 am

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 31

David Olivier wrote:

Gary, the question I put to you:

David Olivier wrote:

What did you say was your landbreaking contribution?

still stands.

OK, I'm not sicking to my resolution I made in the other thread to stay away from this board for a couple of weeks; in this regard, I'm not being consistent. See? Maintaining the abolitionist approach is not about being "pure" and "perfect". Razz

(Re)reading the posts by the abolition-of-meat people has helped me to master an emotional crisis which stemmed from the erroneous idea that they were to be taken seriously in any intellectually relevant respect. Since this is settled now, participating in this debate is actually beginning to be fun, and I'm ready for another round. One thing to start with, I really don't mind putting a "trademark on words," (David Olivier) by quoting someone verbatim; but I look forward to one of your charming and sophisticated comments on that quirk of mine, David.

In February last year, there was a debate between Gary Francione and Erik Marcus from which I'd like to post the following excerpt:

>>Erik: (The thing is how passionately we disagree and how much we agree on, ..I could not agree more that we need to speak with one voice about property and about the absolute corrupt nature of animal agriculture to everyone who's receptive to that.

Gary: Let me ask you a question Erik, if you really believe that, why aren't any of my books on the list of books that you recommend? Not one of them.

Erik: Oh, well, I’ll tell you flat out. Because you know, to be totally frank?

Gary: Yeah.

Erik: I think that it is so obvious and so apparent that welfare reform can and does eliminate enormous amount of suffering, just enormous, and to have the opinion that it does not... I, you know... it's just shocking.

Gary: It's not something that people should even be reading, right Erik?

Erik: Oh, that's not a question of that. What it is a question of is, honestly I have not picked up your books and I don't suspect that you picked up mine, but I have not read your books because what I know about what you said about welfare reform, strikes me as so completely and obviously incorrect that I, you know, until you got on the Vegan Freaks a couple weeks ago, I wasn't motivated to even engage with what you had to say or to listen.<<

Apart from his participation in this debate, Marcus's most significant contribution to the animal rights discourse was his famous depiction of a controversial conversation between Gary Francione and Hoss Firooznia on the Satya forum (one of the kind that is taking place here) as a boxing match. (Accordingly, he certainly would like the idea of having fought - and won – a 'duel' with Francione (which was decided by Marcus's commiting intellectual suicide).) It is "comically typical" (David Olivier) of the intellectual standards of the animal movement to challenge a recognized theorist to a debate about his ideas without having read any of his major publications, if any at all, or to try to publicly question the importance of an academic work one is not acquainted with in the slightest.

David Olivier wrote:

Perhaps you're partly right concerning Gary; I have googled a bit and read some of his stuff (...)

That would be good starting point and certainly more than Erik Marcus was willing to afford; unfortunately, none of your posts here or elsewhere reveal a reflection on whatever of Gary's "stuff" you may have read. Never mind. Referring to Joan Dunayer whose work is the original subject matter of this thread, in the future world that she envisions, clams will have the right to initiate discussions about philosophy.

Posted: Yesterday, at 6:55 pm

benio
Animal Guardian

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 83
Location: France

Karin wrote:

none of your posts here or elsewhere reveal a reflection on whatever of Gary's "stuff" you may have read.

None of your posts here or elsewhere reflects a capacity to answer our objections against Gary's "abolitionist" theory otherwise than saying that it is a very complex "academic work". As a supporter of that work, you're supposed to be able to defend it using concepts, and not just claiming to its academical authority. Luckily, my past acquaintance with the academic context is sufficient to protect me from its charming aura: I consider most of the academic people as specialized morons and I often find inexactitude and errors in "academic work". Academical status often does not have much to do with philosophy, nor with culture, nor with sense.

I read some texts from Gary's blog some months ago. I was hoping to find something new about vivisection, but what I read was perfectly aligned with the traditional approach that I've been criticizing for four years: Gary says that most of vivisection is "not necessary" and repeats all the boring and questionable arguments about incompatibility between species; as for the ethical criticism that he develops, his conclusion that

«Reliance on cognitive characteristics beyond sentience to justify the use of non-humans in experiments requires either that we assume that these characteristics are morally relevant or that we ignore the fact that we do not regard the lack of such characteristics as morally relevant where humans are concerned.» (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=33#more-33)

is nothing new if compared with the arguments given by Singer in Animal Liberation (plus the argument that the lives of non-humans have an inherent value, which is already explicit in Regan's works). If you think that in Gary's "academic texts" there are other arguments which bring something new to this specific issue, I will be glad to know. (But I ask you please to explain which arguments, and not just to say "read the book".)

Posted: Yesterday, at 8:49 pm

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 31

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

Karin wrote:

benio wrote:

Sorry, but I will be more consistent with regard to this.

(And sorry for the above typo in "bourgeois".)

Posted: Yesterday, at 9:43 pm

benio
Animal Guardian

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 83
Location: France

Re: Dunayer's dropped citation of Francione

Karin wrote:

Sorry, but I will be more consistent with regard to this.

It seems that the main virtue of Gary's "abolitionist" theory is that it teaches people to leave when they have no arguments.

Posted: Yesterday, at 9:49 pm

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Karin wrote:

In February last year, there was a debate between Gary Francione and Erik Marcus from which I'd like to post the following excerpt:

(...)

I'm sorry, Karin, I don't see in what way a long quote showing that Erik Marcus has read none of Gary's books is relevant to the present discussion!

I myself have read none of Gary's books, if you want to know. But I have the impression that I have read much more of what Gary has written than he has of what I have written. And more than that, that I read with more attention and more sincere desire to understand what he writes on this forum, than he does of what I write on this forum. As an example, all he has to say in answer to my recent rather elaborate posts is that it would be easier to discuss philosophy with a clam.

Now I see that Gary is going away. That really gives me the impression that he is running away. How can it be that he can't defend his ideas here? In all the discussions I have been part of here, he has had a clear majority of the contributers on his side. So it's not like his words are drowned out. It's rather like just one person saying “the emperor has no clothes” is enough to leave him helpless!

Karin wrote:

It is "comically typical" (David Olivier) of the intellectual standards of the animal movement to challenge a recognized theorist to a debate about his ideas without having read any of his major publications, if any at all, or to try to publicly question the importance of an academic work one is not acquainted with in the slightest.

If someone says something that appears to me absurd, I have the right to question it. If then it is really not possible for that person to explain in a short answer why it is not absurd, but has given a lengthy explanation in eir book, well that person might answer me: “Look, David, I understand that what I said may appear absurd, because it is a really complicated matter and needs a book-length response“ But that is not what Gary answers. Instead, he insists that his short answers should suffice, and that if you don't agree with him after that — if you find his short answers beside the point, contradictory, factually false or just devoid of substance — then you are not worthy of discussing with (better to discuss with a clam).

That gives me no desire to read his books. All I would expect to find in them is more of the same. I may be mistaken, but then I only have one life, and must choose the books I am going to read.

Regarding how important and groundbreaking his work is: he summed up what he believes is the novelty of his work. I showed, I think, that the points he mentions as new were not new at all. I fail to see what Gary has contributed in way of ideas. Perhaps I am mistaken, but again he seems unable to give any answer.

David

_________________
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Yesterday, at 11:00 pm

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 31

David Olivier wrote:

That gives me no desire to read his books.

I know, David. I happen to think that reading books makes a difference. But you don't have to. You have the right to remain what you are, a utilitarian. That's fine. I mean, there seems to be nothing we can do about it. And if you find comfort in the idea that Gary is "running away" – from this forum in general, and from you in particular – that's the least damage being done to the movement for the abolition of animal slavery, part of which – one part among others – is the abolition of meat.

Take care.

Karin

Posted: Today, at 12:03 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Mortgage | Mortgage | Online Loans | Car Finance | Bad Credit Loan

Copyright © 2005, 2008 ARCO
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Bringing Animal Rights closer. Offering support for a pure vegetarian, fruitarian or raw food (plant based) diet and a vegan lifestyle.

[ Time: 0.9979s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0130s) ][ Debug on ]