On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
>>>>>>>>>> disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
>>>>>>>>>> word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
>>>>>>>>>> "speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
>>>>>>>>>> with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
>>>>>>>>>> called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
>>>>>>>>>> outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
>>>>>>>>>> attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
>>>>>>>>>> needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
>>>>>>>>>> evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
>>>>>>>>>> deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
>>>>>>>>>> going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
>>>>>>>>>> it is wrong in its substance.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
>>>>>>>>>> logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
>>>>>>>>>> and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
>>>>>>>>>> scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
>>>>>>>>>> cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
>>>>>>>>>> humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
>>>>>>>>>> species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
>>>>>>>>>> contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
>>>>>>>>>> so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
>>>>>>>>>> view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
>>>>>>>>>> themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
>>>>>>>>>> to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
>>>>>>>>>> comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
>>>>>>>>>> criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
>>>>>>>>>> an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
>>>>>>>>>> granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
>>>>>>>>>> there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
>>>>>>>>>> see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
>>>>>>>>>> some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
>>>>>>>>>> groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
>>>>>>>>>> and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
>>>>>>>>>> traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
>>>>>>>>>> very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
>>>>>>>>>> they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
>>>>>>>>>> do this - *none* of them.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
>>>>>>>>>> animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
>>>>>>>>> then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
>>>>>>>>> human or nonhuman.
>>
>>>>>>>> You've given no valid reason why we should.
>>
>>>>>>> You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.
>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
>>>>>> prove that we ought to make it.
>>
>>>>>> The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
>>>>>> you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.
>>
>>>>> My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
>>>>> agency is the crucial factor seriously.
>>
>>>> As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".
>>
>>> You don't know that it only attaches to one species
>>
>> We all know that it does.
>>
>
> No.

Yes.


>>>>>>>>> That's not speciesism.
>>
>>>>>>>> It's incoherent, is what it is.
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> Already explained.
>>
>>>>> No.
>>
>>>> Yes - explained.
>>
>>> I am not aware
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>
> You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.

Of course I have.


>>>>>>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
>>>>>>>> individual members of different species.
>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>> They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
>>>>>> it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
>>>>>> yourself.
>>
>>>>> Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
>>>>> give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
>>>>> beyond their cognitive capacities.
>>
>>>> It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
>>>> demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.
>>
>>>>>>>> Saying that we *must*, due to
>>>>>>>> some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
>>>>>>>> quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
>>>>>>>> made-up pseudo-words.)
>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
>>>>>>> obligations.
>>
>>>>>> It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
>>>>>> are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
>>>>>> attribute.
>>
>>>>> That's not what is being said.
>>
>>>> That *is* what is being said.
>>
>>> Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.
>>
>> Not what you're saying.
>>
>
> Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.

No, it is not. You're saying humans, based on a species-dependent
trait, are morally required to give equal consideration to animals'
interests, when no other species' members do that or are required to do
it. You're engaging in "speciesism".

You're ****ed.