"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> Well written, Rupert.
>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>
>> [..]
>
>>>>The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
>>>>humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
>>>>what-have-you.
>
>>>You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
>>>most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
>>>always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
>>>animals.
>
>> I have explained this before.
>
> You have tap-danced around it before, but never successfully.
>
>> Human rights are designed to protect humans
>
> Animal rights are designed to protect animals
================
And, NO other animal defends, observes or puts forth these rights, fool...


>
>> because of what we are by nature,
>
> because of what they are by nature -- beings having moral
> standing and inherent value.
>
>> and those rights cover all humans, including those whose nature is not
>> yet developed or diminished by age or injury.
>
> But only if based on arbitrary speciesism, which is a prejudice only,
> not a reasonable moral criterion.
=======================
LOL As the most immoral person I've seen on usenet, you're hardly a beacon
of ligth when it comes to preaching about morals, killer.


>
>> We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will be
>> realized.
>
> Irrationally, in the case of many humans who are obviously
> incapable of realizing it.
>
>>>>>I really had a tough
>>>>>time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
>>>>>seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.
>
>>>>There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use
>>>>of
>>>>animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
>>>>humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
>>>>intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
>>>>little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,
>
>>>It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.
>
>> That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.
>
> Rupert is correct; it is NOT coming to terms with it. It is
> evading the issue.
>
>>>If we hold that
>>>it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
>>>lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
>>>permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
>>>characteristics.
>
>> No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics
>> that is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the
>> characteristics. All humans have the essential ability to hold the
>> characteristics of humanness, even if they are impaired due to
>> misfortune. No animals of any other species have the potential to have
>> such abilities, ZERO.
>
> Species prejudice -- and complete illogic. Because Dr. X has the
> ability to do high-level math research, *I* should get a scholarship
> to Harvard.... OTOH, if Alex the parrot can identify categories on
> an abstract level equivalent to a normal human five-year-old, then
> he deserves the same consideration -- if intelligence and awareness
> are the relevant characteristics.
>
>>
>>>Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
>>>position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
>>>upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
>>>things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
>>>and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
>>>humans who lack the characteristics."
>
>> You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach
>> the conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species
>> to the level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find
>> at least one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities
>> equal or similar to humans.
>
> True of most abilities of humans. The more we learn, the more it becomes
> obvious that some animals show the same qualities as humans
> in most situations. The differences are small, and morally
> irrelevant.
>
> <snip>
>>
>>>>the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
>>>>have anything remotely like human characteristics.
>
> That is clearly not true.
>
>