On Apr 20, 2:02*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 1:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 4:51 pm, George > *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.
>
> Nope - I don't.
>

Much joy may this belief bring you.

> >> 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.
>
> That's a lie.
>

No, of course it's not a lie, the people I associate with are not
violent people, apart from you who once fantasised about smashing your
fist into my face.

> > There is nothing
> > incoherent about the position I have put forward.
>
> There is. *You just recite, in a rote manner, that AMC is a sort of
> magical sword. *It isn't - it fails.
>
> I've noticed that when that professional pro-"ar" agitator Nobis starts
> out mentioning AMC, he says it as if it's just obvious that it's a
> nuclear weapon against wooden spears:
>
> * * * If you have problems with the concept of a 'right,' you can also
> * * * think of this position as being equivalent to the following
> * * * proposition: 'It is morally wrong to kill animals and make them
> * * * suffer except in self-defense.' The most powerful argument for
> * * * this conclusion is the Argument from Marginal Cases.
>
> * * * So-called 'marginal cases' are humans who lack the ability to
> * * * reason or be held accountable for their actions but who are still
> * * * considered part of the moral community and have a right not to be
> * * * killed or made to suffer except in self-defense. (Philosophers
> * * * also call such people moral patients.) This argument is so crucial
> * * * to the animal rights debate that one philosopher, Daniel A.
> * * * Dombrowski, has written a whole book about it called Babies and
> * * * Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases.
>
> * * * I have never heard a satisfactory response to this stunning argument.
>
> The only thing "stunning" about it is how wrong it is.

You're not quoting Nobis there, that's David Graham.

> Note that he
> doesn't suggest there might be a counterargument to it, which of course
> is the argument from species normality - an argument the "aras" plainly
> do *not* understand.
>

He goes on to discuss the argument from species normality in that same
article you are quoting, which he says is the most important
counterargument.

> >> *YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope - I'm right again. *It's getting to be a habit.

Much joy may this belief bring you.