On 4/26/2012 6:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 25, 11:46 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/25/2012 1:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 7:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>>>>> Video (8.38 minutes)
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>>
>>>>>> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
>>>>>> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
>>>>>> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
>>>>>> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>>
>>>>> The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
>>>>> Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."
>>
>>>> Sophistry.
>>
>>> What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
>>> thenm?
>>
>>>>> Animals are
>>>>> aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
>>>>> of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
>>>>> a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
>>>>> "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
>>>>> aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
>>
>>>> Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
>>>> contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
>>>> reality.
>>
>>> The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
>>> this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
>>> reality.
>>
>> No, that's wrong.
>
> It's not.

It is.


> I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite obviously).

Regan got it wrong, too, so you're following him in his error.


>
>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>
>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>>
>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>>
>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>>
>> Because of that.
>>
>
> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> concept,

There isn't.


> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.

Wrong. What you ****wits are doing is substituting your judgment for
what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.