rick wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> =====================
> >> But the main difference still remains. Within each person is
> >> the
> >> seed of what being human is.
> >> No such seed exists in ANY animal.
> >
> > I don't know what "the seed of being human" is. It's just empty
> > hand-waving.
> ===================
> No, it's not. Tell me the other animals that have the capacity
> to be morally aware as a person does.

If moral awareness is the relevant characteristic, then not all humans
have it.

You *can't* identify a morally relevant characteristic which all humans
have and all nonhumans lack. If you could you would have done it by
now. "The seed of being human" doesn't mean anything. You didn't mean
moral awareness by it, and you knew that if you said you didn't your
argument wouldn't have had any credibility. You're equivocating.

> You can't, plain and simple, just like your mind...
>

Tee hee. Yes, that's right, Rick, I'm the one with a simple mind.
You've got it all sorted out and all the philosophers who do research
on this issue have simple minds and are ignorant and stupid. Whatever
you say.

>
> There is no property which all humans have in common and
> > all nonhumans lack, except certain genetic characteristics,
> > which
> > cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.
> ===========================
> LOL Morally to whom, fool? All morals are a human concept.
> Again, tell me the other animals that will abide, defend or even
> recognize these 'morals,' killer.

Nonhuman animals have limited capacity for moral agency, as do some
humans. And your point is?

>
>
> >
> >> The person you claim now
> >> doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
> >> achieve those differences. No matter how much hand-waving,
> >> and
> >> how many strawmen you prop up, NO animals will ever achive the
> >> difference. Again, your ignorance and stupidity blind you to
> >> reality.
> >
> > It's quite funny to see you talking about "ignorance and
> > stupidity".
> > The philosophical community has been debating this issue for
> > the last
> > thirty years and everyone agrees that there is a serious
> > problem with
> > defending speciesism. I really don't think you are competent to
> > judge
> > all these professional philosophers to be ignorant and stupid.
> > Why
> > don't you try and publish the argument you just came up with,
> > see how
> > you go. If you really think you can defend speciesism I'm sure
> > everyone
> > would be very excited to hear about it.
> >=====================================
> Anything excites you that doesn't fit into your brainwashing,
> fool.
> Again, tell me the animals that have within them the capacity of
> being human.

You can't define what you mean by that.

> ALL people have that capacity.

Define what you mean and argue the point. You're just asserting that
this mythical capacity exists which all humans have and all nonhumans
have, without identifying what it is. You can't identify it. You're
wasting my time. And you hilariously think you have the right to call
me stupid.

> It may not exist because of
> illness or injury, but it is still there.

It may not exist, but it is still there. Brilliant.

Incidentally, my argument was about the cases where it never existed
and never will.

> A 'cure' could be found, making them a fully aware human.

No, this is not the case, not all forms of radical cognitive impairment
are curable, in fact I don't think any of them are. You are really
grasipng at straws here.

> No
> such 'cure' for animals to become human is ever going to be
> there. The ignorant and stupid I'm arguing with here is you and
> karen, fool. You two are the top of the class in both...

Yeah, that's right, Rick, you're smart and we're ignorant and stupid.
You *really* lack credibility when you argue this issue. You really
don't know what you're talking about. You should stick to ranting about
collateral deaths and how wonderful grass-fed beef is.