On Apr 18, 5:15*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the default starting position.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, that is the way the world works.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree on this point,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
> >>>>>>>>>>> ARA.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to
> >>>>>>>>>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
> >>>>>>>>>> established.
>
> >>>>>>>>> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that
> >>>>>>>> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be
> >>>>>>>> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. *That's a
> >>>>>>>> *normative* ethical prescription.
>
> >>>>>>> Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes
> >>>>>>> quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different
> >>>>>>> areas of moral philosophy are linked.
>
> >>>>>>>> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the
> >>>>>>>> field of ethics and elsewhere.
>
> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the
> >>>>>>>>> matter than you.
>
> >>>>>>>> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics.
>
> >>>>>>> I know that. My remark still stands.
>
> >>>> Your remark is bullshit.
>
> >>> Actually, it's the obvious truth.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep piling up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All of what?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of your claims.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal
> >>>>>>>>> consideration, yes? Or no?
>
> >>>>>>>> No - and neither do you.
>
> >>>>>>> What do you believe about humans, then?
>
> >>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.
>
> >>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?
>
> >>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you.
>
> >>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".
>
> >> Yes, you do.
>
> > You are a foolish person.
>
> No. *You don't believe it, either.

If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing.