On Apr 19, 4:51*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2012 5:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 1:29 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/17/2012 2:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> In article<qdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h2dn...@giganews. com>,
> >>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>> Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
> >>>>>>>>>> individual members of different species.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
> >>>>>>>>> assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
> >>>>>>>>> consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
> >>>>>>>>> are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
> >>>>>>>>> present can not be arrived at logically.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
> >>>>>>>> * * * They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
> >>>>>>>> to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. *We
> >>>>>>>> don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
> >>>>>>>> done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
> >>>>>>>> either. *No animals give that kind of consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
> >>>>>>>>> instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
> >>>>>>>>> of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
> >>>>>>>>> are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's not moral consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you have a dog?
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes. *I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
> >>>>>>>> I give to the interests of my son. *The "ar" passivists say I should
> >>>>>>>> give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
> >>>>>>>> more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
> >>>>>>>> animals. *But it doesn't work that way. *If I arrive to pick my son up
> >>>>>>>> from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
> >>>>>>>> are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
> >>>>>>>> only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
> >>>>>>>> while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. *That's just how it is.
>
> >>>>>>> That's a straw man.
>
> >>>>>> No, it isn't. *You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
> >>>>>> the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings. *It's bullshit, of
> >>>>>> course, but that's your claim.
>
> >>>>> It does not follow from this claim that you are not morally entitled
> >>>>> to rescue your son in the circumstances you described. The principle
> >>>>> of equal consideration is consistent with special ties.
>
> >>>> Special ties like species membership, perhaps?
>
> >>> You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
> >>> "special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
> >>> does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
> >>> speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
> >>> entitled to claim special ties based on race.
>
> >> So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
> >> the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
> >> because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
> >> shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
> >> give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
> >> the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?
>
> >> The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
> >> not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
> >> members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
> >> (MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
> >> members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
> >> have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
> >> has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.
>
> >> You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.
>
> > For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
> > lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
> > or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do.

> The AMC is simply demolished. *It doesn't work to do
> anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.
>
> You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
> entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
> any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
> some entities' interests higher priority. *You're ****ing incoherent.
>

No-one I associate with is prone to violence. There is nothing
incoherent about the position I have put forward.

> *YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.

Wrong.