On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 04:57:40PM -0700, Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 6, 6:45 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> Rupert, slavishly adoring of a third-rate philosophy prof who spent
his
> > >> career at an academic backwater, uncritically quoted the third-rate
prof
> > >> and blabbered:
> >
> > > It would be widely agreed in the academic community
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > that the author of
> > > "The Case for Animal Rights" is not a "third-rate prof
> >
> > Regan spent his entire career at an academic backwater, and if not for
> > having staked out an extreme position on a controversial topic, his
> > entire career would have gone unnoticed in the academic world.
> >
>
> There's more to it than just taking an extreme position on a
> controversial topic, it's generally agreed that "The Case for Animal
> Rights" is an interesting and well-argued book, with interesting
> remarks about moral methodology, nonhuman animal psychology, and so
> forth. He takes positions on topics other than our treatment of
> nonhuman animals and those are discussed as well.
>
> Anyway, you think John Rawls should have been thrown out of academia
> (despite not having read any of his books all the way through), and he
> was the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth
> century, so you obviously don't think much of the standards of
> scholar****p that currently prevail in moral and political philosophy
> anyway, so in that case the question of how highly Regan's work is
> regarded by academics is not really all that im****tant.
What's really not all that im****tant is reading your impotent drivel.
Sure, you might mistakenly impress a few naive kids, but that's all.
Nobody who knows anything about anything is going give any credence to
the brain-damaged **** that dribbles out of your computer and onto the
Internet.
If the Internet is the alley outside your house, your words are the
contents of the chamber-pot you drained out your window in the morning.
> > >>> [Regan, the third-rate prof:] Consider this possible scenario.
Why not hire someone to infiltrate
> > >>> the animal rights movement, as an agent provocateur, with one main
> > >>> purpose: to find a malleable person in the movement who could be
> > >>> "encouraged" (shall we say) to try to do something that would
really
> > >>> discredit ARAs. Like, maybe this person could be "encouraged" to
try
> > >>> to murder someone. And not just anyone. No, the "someone" should
be a
> > >>> pillar of the community, someone who (what an odd coincidence)
just
> > >>> happened to be a leader in a major animal user industry, someone
who
> > >>> just happened to have been famously outspoken in his criticisms of
> > >>> ARAs. An attempt on his life would be perfect. It would show the
> > >>> public that ARAs really are extremists who will stop at nothing to
> > >>> further their ends. It is not hard to visualize the headline:
"Animal
> > >>> Rights Terrorist Attempts to Murder Pillar of Community".
> > >>> A few problems would have to be solved. It takes time to find the
> > >>> right person for the job. It takes money to pay all the players.
Who
> > >>> is going to come up with the necessary cash? Well, suppose the
pillar
> > >>> himself could pay for the attempt on his life. Suppose the pillar
> > >>> himself (such is his influence) could arrange to have the local
police
> > >>> on hand to arrest the would-be murderer. "Nah", you might say,
"This
> > >>> is too fanciful, too conspiratorial. I don't think anyone in a
major
> > >>> animal user industry would ever do anything like this." Think
again.
> > >>> Leon Hirsch, past president of the Norwalk, Connecticut-based U.
S.
> > >>> Surgical Cor****ation, played the role of the pillar of the
community.
> > >>> Hirsch's former company manufactures staples used in place of
ordinary
> > >>> sutures in many operations. During Hirsch's tenure, physicians
> > >>> received training by practicing on live dogs, who were vivisected,
> > >>> then killed. ARAs (led by Friends of Animals, also locate in
Norwalk)
> > >>> mounted an in-your-face campaign against Hirsch and his company
back
> > >>> in the late 1980s. His ingenious way of getting even was to put up
the
> > >>> necessary money to arrange for an ARA to try to murder him.
> > >>> On November 11, 1989, a man on the payroll of a firm Hirsch had
hired
> > >>> drove a young woman named Fran Trutt, a self-professed ARA, along
with
> > >>> her two recently purchased pipe bombs, from New York City to
Norwalk.
> > >>> When she placed the bombs adjacent to Hirsch's parking space,
Hirsch's
> > >>> friends in the Norwalk police department just happened to be on
hand
> > >>> to arrest her.
> > >>> The resulting story (not the bombs, which never exploded) was the
real
> > >>> bombshell. There it was: "Animal Rights Terrorist Attempts to
Murder
> > >>> Pillar of Community". As John C. Stauber and Sheldom Rampton
observe,
> > >>> "Normally, of course, company presidents do not arrange their own
> > >>> murder, but Hirsch was neither crazy nor suicidal. He was trying
to
> > >>> engineer an embarrassing scandal that would discredit the animal
> > >>> rights movement."
> > >>> Hirsch would have succeeded, too, except for one thing: the
ensuing
> > >>> trial brought ot light extensive tape transcripts that implicated
> > >>> everyone, from Hirsch on down, who had hatched the plot to
discredit
> > >>> ARAs. Friends of Animals sued Hirsch, who sold U. S. Surgical in
1998,
> > >>> but their suit was unsuccessful, and he never faced any criminal
> > >>> charges. Perhaps not surprisingly, Fran Trutt was the only person
to
> > >>> serve time (a year in prison, followed by a year on probation).
She
> > >>> seems to have left the movement.
> > >> False. There was no entrapment, and the firm did not set Trutt up.
> >
> > > Well, that's interesting, I wonder why Hirsch doesn't sue Regan for
> > > defamation.
> >
> > > "No entrapment", eh? Strong words, Rudy.
> >
> > No, the accusation of entrapment is what would be strong language,
were
> > it not for the fact that every criminal in modern history claims to
have
> > been entrapped. This **** Trutt was not entrapped at all.
Entrapment,
> > at least in American jurisprudence, occurs when someone is induced by
> > law enforcement to commit a crime that he would not otherwise have
> > committed; that he showed no inclination to commit until pressure was
> > applied by police. There was no "agent provocateur" in this case -
the
> > ***** Trutt willingly engaged herself in the conspiracy to murder
> > Hirsch, and she obtained the materials for her pipe bombs entirely
> > independently of any coercion by the private security agents.
> >
>
> All right. If we can find sources that bear that out, fine. :)
>
> I note that you were the first person to use the word "entrapment".
>
> > Regan completely misrepresented what happened. That's what third-rate
> > philosophy profs at academic backwaters do.
> >
>
> I'll look into the matter further. There's some discussion of it in
> Peter Singer's "Ethics into Action" as well, I think. I suppose Peter
> Singer is probably a third-rate prof at an academic backwater too,
> isn't he? :) He must be because he's an animal liberationist.
>
> > > I can't read your link because my anti-censor****p software has
stopped
> > > working, I'll have to look at it later.
> >
> > If you weren't willingly helping sup****t a corrupt autocracy, you
> > wouldn't have this issue. You're helping to prop up the vestiges of
one
> > of the most corrupt, murderous regimes in history. The Chinese
> > Communist party caused the deaths of tens, more likely hundreds of
> > millions of Chinese, and here you are helping to sup****t the direct
> > political descendants of the murderers. Many of these people
themselves
> > have blood on their hands, and you're helping them maintain their grip
> > on power.
>
> Well, thanks for your thoughts, Ball, I'll think about that one, but
> actually I don't think I'm affecting the political situation in China
> in any tangible way. I really had no idea that I was "willingly"
> paying taxes. I mean, I got assaulted in a nightclub a few months ago
> and I was told by my friends that I had no legal recourse unless I
> knew the judge, that led to a certain feeling of frustration about the
> fact that I'm paying taxes. Isn't a bit like, the kid wants to go and
> play on the swings, the schoolyard bully charges him a toll, the kid
> hands over the money and someone else says "You shouldn't sup****t the
> schoolyard bully, you had the option of not playing on the swings." I
> wouldn't have thought the kid has the obligation of doing without
> playing on the swings if he doesn't want to, he's not responsible for
> the fact that there's a schoolyard bully there. Well, there's another
> set of swings in a different part of the playground which are just as
> good, he go on them if he wants and pay money to another schoolyard
> bully who is a bit "nicer", but he's got his heart set on this set of
> swings because there's a girl there that he really likes. I can assure
> you that if my girlfriend didn't exist I wouldn't have accepted my
> second contract, I wasn't particularly thrilled by it.
STFU dip****. Do your own dirty work.
Regards,
Steve
--
Simon says stay calm. Everything is under control. Move along.
[Dumb**** Threat Level: PINK-BLACK]
|
