On 4/16/2012 11:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they are not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not speciesism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what you're doing.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tell us what your motive is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand this.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesist."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; right.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments which show this premise to be problematic.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a go at it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand advanced mathematics?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "potentiality"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
>>>>>>>>>>>> the potential to be or to become a moral actor. Furthermore, even when
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't potentially one. This is obviously true of normal human infants,
>>>>>>>>>>>> people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
>>>>>>>>>>>> asleep, and others.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
>>>>>>>>>> native language.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
>>>>>>>>> agents.
>>
>>>>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> **** off, time-waster.
>>
>>>>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>>
>>>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
>>>> what I've already explained many times.
>>
>>> I didn't.
>>
>> You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.
>
> I didn't.

You did. It's just one more in a string of attempts at wasting my time.