The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message news:BvXsi.29050$fJ5.20442@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:

> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >> has-been.
> >
> > 'Bullies project
>
> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> of the collateral deaths issue.
>
> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.

You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote
>> pearl wrote:
>
>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>>>> has-been.
>>> 'Bullies project
>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
>> of the collateral deaths issue.
>>
>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
>
> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.

I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.

Back to the topic..

Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
insulting and condescending.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>> has-been.
> >>> 'Bullies project
> >> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>
> >> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >
> > You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>
> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.

And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.

> Back to the topic..
>
> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
> insulting and condescending.

What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>>>>>> has-been.
>>>>> 'Bullies project
>>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
>>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
>>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
>>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
>>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
>>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
>>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
>>>>
>>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
>>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
>> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
>
> And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.

What a sad, pathetic lot you are..

>> Back to the topic..
>>
>> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
>> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
>> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
>> insulting and condescending.
>
> What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?

Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message news:Yn4ti.30018$fJ5.7804@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>>>> has-been.
> >>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>>
> >> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> >> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
> >
> > And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> > crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.
>
> What a sad, pathetic lot you are..

Translation: "What a sad, pathetic person I am.."

> >> Back to the topic..
> >>
> >> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
> >> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
> >> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
> >> insulting and condescending.
> >
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
>
> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.

What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote
>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> What "valid points"

Watch the second video dimwit.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

pearl wrote:

> What "valid points" doesn't he address

He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does. Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee? Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence. Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle. Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points. The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote
> >> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.

Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Adi9dCbU&mode=related&search=

> > What "valid points"
>
> Watch the second video dimwit.

I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
"we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
"We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I see. It is now up on my webpage ...
URL?

Does it have stuff like:
http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt ??

> You really are a funny clown, Ball.
No; noBalls is a lonely, hateful, vulgar, self-destructive psychopath
who tries to get attention and waste sincere peoples' time by being vulgar
and insulting, for that is all he knows. He is just crying out for help.

"It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." - noBalls

Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> Take the name off your webpage, fruit. Now.

"Your sole purpose in life is to try to attack someone."
-- noBalls

Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Aug 7, 7:20 am, "Laurie" <LAWRENCEFO....RemoveThis@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > I see. It is now up on my webpage ...
>
> URL?
>

http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

> Does it have stuff like:http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt??
>

I did briefly put up a photo of him and a few links to some of his
greatest hits, but I took that down.

> > You really are a funny clown, Ball.
>
> No; noBalls is a lonely, hateful, vulgar, self-destructive psychopath
> who tries to get attention and waste sincere peoples' time by being vulgar
> and insulting, for that is all he knows. He is just crying out for help.
>
> "It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." - noBalls
>
> Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote
>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.

If you like rude, condescending blowhards. What colossal gall,
addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
hadn't done their homework. Every one a highly respected person with
more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.

Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch <n... RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> What "valid points" doesn't he address
>> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
>> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
>
> He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
> work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.

She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.

>
>> Do we place the
>> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
>
> Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
> Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
> things.

But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.

>
>> Steven Rose also makes this
>> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
>> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
> within that approach too.

Perhaps, but not his speech.

>
>> Wetlesen's
>> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
>
> ... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
>
>> Regan spends half his
>> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
>> little addressing their points.
>
> He did address their points,

He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.

> and what he said was pretty fair comment.

It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.

> He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> position to criticize him about that.

He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.

>
>> The people that uploaded the video, the
>> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
>> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
>
> Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.

Perhaps we could get hold of them.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate