On 4/10/2012 12:26 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> "Neon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> I have no idea what you just said.

I have no doubt - truly *zero* doubt - that he read the post in, and
then posted his reply to, alt.philosophy. His writing style is the norm
there - dense, turgid, impenetrable sophism. You'd probably have better
luck trying to read a translation of Nietzsche into Swahili.