On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
> that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
> of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
> of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
> you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
> quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
> done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
> the truth, and not lying.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Actually, it is.

It isn't.


> I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.

I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.