|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
|
|
|
ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
On Apr 26, 11:28*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
So animals are just animated pieces of meat?
|