On Jul 29, 8:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
> >>>>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
> >>>>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
> >>>>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
> >>>>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
> >>>>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
> >>>>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
> >>>>> circumstances.
> >>>> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
> >>>> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario,
> >> Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?
>
> > This is your idea of serious discussion, is it?
>
> counterfactual. A conditional statement whose antecedent is known (or,
> at least, believed) to be contrary to fact.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
>

Counterfactual thought-experiments are quite often used in moral
philosophy. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't sometimes be
useful.

> >> but that's
>
> >>> the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
> >>> notion of "equal consideration" in that context.
> >> I don't want to talk about it,
>
> > Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time.
>
> YOU are the one who is supposed to be explaining it.
>

I've been trying, I've surely been trying.

> >> I want YOU to give an example that might
> >> occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
> >> can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
> >> coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.
>
> > I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can
> > only give you highly counterfactual examples.
>
> So the moral guidelines you are proposing we must follow don't relate to
> situations in the real world?

Yes, they do. But to determine how they apply in particular
circumstances you may need to consider highly counterfactual
situations.

> That seems misguided.

That doesn't seem like much of an argument. Maybe you could elaborate.
What's wrong with them?

> What's their purpose?
>

To guide behaviour.

> I've done that. Yes, I
>
> > would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be
> > too.
>
> How is that possible, I just made that scenario up out of my head.

We've talked this over before. I'll find the message for you later if
you like.