On Apr 16, 5:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying. If I say that my
position is that only moral agents have moral obligations, then you
don't get to make the "interpretation" that that is not really what I
am saying. You take me at my word, that is part of what is involved in
serious debate.