On Apr 10, 6:14*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>
> >>>> No reason at all.
>
> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
>
> >> They never will, because its impossible.
>
> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.
>
> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.

Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
think when
reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
animal
life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
lost sensitivity
and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
often accused
of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
irrelevent differences
between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
agree it
seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
disease
or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
very soon. Those
tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
racial.