On Apr 9, 10:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> >>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> >>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> >>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> >>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> >>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.
>
> >>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> >>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> >>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>
> >>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> >>>>>> members.
>
> >>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> >>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>
> >>>>> No, they are not.
>
> >>>> Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
> >>>> to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
> >>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
> >>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>
> >>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
> >>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
> >>> not speciesism.
>
> >> That's not what you're doing.
>
> > Why not?
>
> You tell us what your motive is.
>

I don't understand this.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists
> >>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >>>>>>>> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >>>>>>>> "speciesist."
>
> >>>>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>>>> It is.
>
> >>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
>
> >>>> I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry.
>
> >>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >>>>>>>> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> >>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> >>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>
> >>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.
>
> >>>>> Why not?
>
> >>>> I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
> >>>> normality defeats it, among other things.
>
> >>> The argument from species normality is flawed.
>
> >> No, it isn't. *It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope; right.
>

What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?

> Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
> pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
> animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.
>

It would probably do both.

> You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism. You don't have
a sound argument in *favour* of speciesism.

> There never
> was one - that's why so much of the blabber about it is spent trying to
> tie it to other "isms" to which it is not comparable, rather than
> leaving that crap out and showing what's wrong with it /per se/.