On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote:
>>>> > wrote
>>
>>>>> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
>>>>> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
>>>>> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based
>>>>> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
>>>>> proof is on the speciesist.
>>
>>>> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are
>>>> not
>>>> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be
>>>> to
>>>> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth
>>>> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would
>>>> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would
>>>> not
>>>> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire
>>>> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that
>>>> other
>>>> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
>>>> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate
>>>> against.
>>>> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
>>>> misconception.
>>
>>>> There's your proof, and explanation.
>>
>>> But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own
>>> species who lacks the usual capacities for your species
>>
>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
>>
>
> No, I'm not.

You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying
to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but
your plankiness prevented you from grasping it.


>>> and one
>>> involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
>>> of species.
>>
>> No, I don't.
>
> Good to hear.