On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
>>>>>>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
>>>>>>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
>>>>>>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
>>>>>>>>>> members.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
>>>>>>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No, they are not.
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
>>>>>>>> to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
>>>>>>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>>
>>>>>>> No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
>>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
>>>>>>> not speciesism.
>>
>>>>>> That's not what you're doing.
>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>> You tell us what your motive is.
>>
>>> I don't understand this.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The "ar" passivists
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>>>>>>>>>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> "speciesist."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
>>
>>>>>>>> I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>>>>>>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>>>>>>>>>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>>>>>>>>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>>
>>>>>>>>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>>>>>> I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.
>>
>>>>>>> The argument from species normality is flawed.
>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.
>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>> Nope; right.
>>
>>> What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?
>>
>> Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.
>>
>
> I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
> normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
> species,

So, when you smirkingly demanded that I enumerate the premises of the
argument, you were just trying to waste my time, as you already knew.
You were just ****ing off.