Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:22 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, 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?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.
I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -


I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.


So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.


I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes, yes. You know a lot, Ball. I just recently made a post elsewhere
in this thread on that subject. You know what flaws my talk has
without reading it, and you know what flaws my maths paper has despite
knowing nothing about maths. And you know that I'm queer, that I'm
destined to be a career telemarketer, and so forth. Each time you make
one of these pronouncements it's with absolute certainty. It's just
amazing, how much you know.

Anyway, you asked me to meet my burden of proof, and I've given you a
text to have a look at. If you write up a response, I'll post it on my
webpage and I'll make a good faith effort to consider your criticisms
in a fair and open-minded way, and I'll write a considered response to
them. And we can keep that going for as long as you like. Can't say
fairer than that, now can you?


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:28 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.


Yawn.


Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"Defensive"? Don't see that. Seems to may I made a pretty succint and
rational commentary on the situation, worded as neutrally as possible.
I simply stated the facts about what your perspective is on the
situation and what my perspective is on the situation. And I wondered
whether it might be possible to discuss something more interesting.

I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
hypocrite. But apparently you take great joy in claiming that I am.
Fine. Well, if I thought you had a point, I would have some reason to
care about that, since I care about not being hypocritical. But, since
I think that your arguments on this matter are a joke, like pretty
much everything else you say, I don't really have any rational reason
to care all that much. All right, you have a low opinion of me, well,
I can live with that. I think that your opinion is a joke and that you
are a ridiculous clown. So I really haven't got any particular reason
to be defensive. And I wasn't being defensive, I stated the facts
about what we both think in a neutral way and asked if we could move
on to something more interesting.

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:38 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, 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?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.
I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.

I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.


Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.


Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
know you can't.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:39 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
Yawn.

Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.


"Defensive"? Don't see that.


Of course you'd say that.


I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
hypocrite.


Because it thoroughly undercuts your claim that animals
have "rights". You don't really believe they do; nor
do you believe they are due equal moral consideration,
because you don't extend it to them yourself.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:42 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.


Yawn.


Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


By the way, Ball, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
sufficient in food and electricity. I don't think that you've shown
that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
should, but nevertheless it is a live possibility for me that that is
what I should do. But I'm not convinced that it would be the best
thing to do, because it would mean foregoing opportunities to
alleviate suffering in other ways, by donating money to organizations
like Oxfam and UNICEF. This is a personal moral dilemma which I will
resolve by myself, and I couldn't care less what you think about the
decision I make, I have absolutely no respect for your judgement about
the matter.

You haven't shown that I've verbally commited myself to anything which
entails that what I'm doing is morally wrong. And your contention that
I am "amoral" is one of the most ludicrous things you've ever said,
and it's got some stiff competition. I have done a lot by way of
making significant sacrifices for the sake of my moral ideals, and it
is likely that I will do a lot more in the future. I have every reason
to be proud of what I have done by way of living up to my moral
ideals, you are a disgrace. The idea that I have some reason to be
"defensive" when talking to someone like you is one of the funniest
jokes you have ever made. You will, of course, deny this, but that is
irrelevant. Your judgement about the matter is worthless. Your
pronouncements on the matter are just as silly as calling me queer.

I really don't know what you imagine you achieve with all this
nonsense.



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:52 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
Yawn.

Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.


By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
sufficient in food and electricity.


No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
giving it up.


I don't think that you've shown
that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
should, but


Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
humans, and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
bullshit. QED
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 09:56 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch wrote:


[..]

What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.

Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?


Yes, that's fine.


It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.

Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?


Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
laryngitis?


That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example, or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
same principle as the flightless bird above.

Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.


This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.


Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
experience observing members of their species that they have the
capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.

None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.

I guess you're
somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
the ability in normal contexts is all there.

You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.


Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.

I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
try a bit harder."


That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
subject with me..


You might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet.

Every example I have given does it.


You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.


Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
of the mechanics of the ability.

[..]

Where's the definition? I didn't see one.


A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
discussed.

[..]

How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?

That doesn't matter.


It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
required of it.

These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".


I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
that it may exist. It's the capability itself on which we are placing
the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
abilities would ever manifest.


And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?

The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.


Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.


Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine. He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience. It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing.
Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
capability consists in.

The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.


That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
criteria? How do we go about determining it?


Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.

[..]

really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?


Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
stop you from threatening the existing belief.

So see how you go at
dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.


Maybe if I lay it out in point form

1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.

2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
otherwise the abilities would not exist.

3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.

4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
develop these abilities.

The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
themselves is the topic for another lecture :)


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 01:02 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, 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?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.
I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.
I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.


Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.


Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
know you can't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You asked me for an argument. I gave you one. Instead of bothering to
read it, you confidently asserted that you know, without reading a
single word of it, that in it I assume what I am required to show,
that I haven't shown what I am required to show, and that I can't.
This is not the case. There's not much I can do if you're not going to
read it. You asked for the argument, the argument has been produced
and remains unreplied to. That means I've won. You apparently feel
content with this situation. Jolly good. Now, say some more funny
stuff.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 01:06 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
Yawn.
Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.


By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
sufficient in food and electricity.


No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
giving it up.


You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.

I don't think that you've shown
that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
should, but


Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
humans,


No, it's not. I've discussed this elsewhere in the thread.

and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
bullshit.


Non sequitur.

QED- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 01:59 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch wrote:


[..]

What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?


Yes, that's fine.


It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.


Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
the ability. So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
everyday observation.

Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?


Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
laryngitis?


That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example,


I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
that infants have the capability of speech.

or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.


I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.

The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
same principle as the flightless bird above.


It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
why not? In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.


Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.


This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.


Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
experience observing members of their species that they have the
capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.


Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
radically brain-damaged human, then?





None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.


I guess you're
somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
the ability in normal contexts is all there.
You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.


Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.


I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
try a bit harder."


That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
subject with me..


Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
think there are some serious problems here.

You might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet.
Every example I have given does it.


You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.


Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
of the mechanics of the ability.


Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability. So
do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
It's a bit more complicated.

[..]

Where's the definition? I didn't see one.


A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
discussed.


Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it. You're saying a capability is a
special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
without the corresponding ability being present. I mean, this may seem
like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
"ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
as in the case of "capability".

[..]

How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
That doesn't matter.


It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
required of it.


These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".


I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
that it may exist.


But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
becomes relevant.

It's the capability itself on which we are placing
the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
abilities would ever manifest.


But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
possibility.



And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?
The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.


Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.


Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.


I thought it was capability.

He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience.


Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.

It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.


For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification. What would it
take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing.
Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
capability consists in.
The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.


That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
criteria? How do we go about determining it?


Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.


That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said. Could you
perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information, and more
importantly *what* is it giving us information about?


[..]

really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?


Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
stop you from threatening the existing belief.

So see how you go at


dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.


Maybe if I lay it out in point form

1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.

2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
otherwise the abilities would not exist.


If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
abilities" means.

3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.

4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
develop these abilities.


And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...

The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
themselves is the topic for another lecture :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 04:50 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch wrote:

[..]

What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
Yes, that's fine.

It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
not the ability.


Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
the ability.


Right

So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
everyday observation.


I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
they had innate capabilities.

Do you
understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
laryngitis?

That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
for example,


I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
that infants have the capability of speech.


You're talking about "ability", not capability.

or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.


I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.


Of course, but it's an example of how a person could have the ability to
speak damaged. They could and many do subsequently learn all over again.

The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
same principle as the flightless bird above.


It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
why not?


No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.

In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.


It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
abilities in question.

Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.

Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
experience observing members of their species that they have the
capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.


Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
radically brain-damaged human, then?


We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
you look at from that angle.


None of the abilities an
ape displays are evident in young apes.
I guess you're
somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
the ability in normal contexts is all there.
You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
try a bit harder."

That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
subject with me..


Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
think there are some serious problems here.


Yea, oh well, let's soldier on.


You might be able to give
that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
that yet.
Every example I have given does it.
You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.

Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
of the mechanics of the ability.


Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability.


No he doesn't. You're forgetting that you misread that sentence. He
makes in quite clear that capability *is* latent, undeveloped ability.
If you can't agree to this I could ask him to clarify it, but I am
positive about it.

So
do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
It's a bit more complicated.


I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
that can develop under the right circumstances.

[..]

Where's the definition? I didn't see one.

A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
discussed.


Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.


Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
whole section it is quite clear what he means.

You're saying a capability is a
special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
without the corresponding ability being present.


The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.

I mean, this may seem
like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
"ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
as in the case of "capability".


Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
the ability you have now.


[..]

How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
That doesn't matter.
It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
required of it.
These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".

I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
that it may exist.


But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
becomes relevant.


There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.


It's the capability itself on which we are placing
the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
abilities would ever manifest.


But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
possibility.


I would say not zero, almost all cases involve some level of
diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
treat animals incorrectly.



And,
anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
machinery being there?
The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.

Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.


I thought it was capability.


For sentience. Page 2. "In the following I shall argue for a biocentric
answer to the main question. This is an individualistic version of a
nonanthropocentric position. It ascribes moral status to all individual
living organisms; humans, other animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
This position is congenial to Albert Schweitzer’s ‘reverence for life’.
To me it has a strong appeal with both philosophical and religious
overtones. On the other hand, I do not accept Schweitzer’s assumption
that all living organisms should be ascribed an equal moral status
value. Such a strong assumption seems to be counter-intuitive, and
besides, unnecessary. Instead, I shall argue for a grading of moral
status value, as well as of the strength of our corresponding duties to
moral subjects. There will be one exception from this grading, however,
pertaining to human beings. They are ascribed the highest moral status
value, not because they are humans but because they are moral agents or
moral persons. This will be a universalistic and egalitarian view of
human dignity and basic human rights. Other living beings are ascribed
degrees of moral status value depending on their degree of relevant
similarity to moral persons. Presumably, animals with self-consciousness
or consciousness and sentience have a higher moral status value than
nonconscious and nonsentient organisms. Even so, however, the organisms
with a lesser moral status value are not devoid of moral status, and for
this reason we do have a prima facie duty not to cause avoidable harm to
them. Or if we cannot avoid harming them in order to survive ourselves,
then we have at least a subsidiary duty to cause the least harm."


He
proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
degrees of sentience.


Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.


None of the reasons we extend consideration to marginal humans apply to
non-humans.



It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.


For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.


Not according to the quote I found.

What would it
take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?


That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.

Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
nothing.
Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
capability consists in.
The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
observation. The primary clue is species.
That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
criteria? How do we go about determining it?

Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.


That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.


Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
cases you mean?

Could you
perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,


It just does. Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?

and more
importantly *what* is it giving us information about?


About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.



[..]

really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?

Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
stop you from threatening the existing belief.

So see how you go at


dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.

Maybe if I lay it out in point form

1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.

2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
otherwise the abilities would not exist.


If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
abilities" means.


There is the slightest reason, they are human, therefore the possibility
exists, not only of advancing, but that some exists already, and in most
cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...


3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.

4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
develop these abilities.


And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...


We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.

The issue of the moral significance of the capability or these abilities
themselves is the topic for another lecture :)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 07:10 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 2:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
Yawn.
Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.


"Defensive"? Don't see that.


Of course you'd say that.


Well, it's true.

I don't see any sensible reason why you would care whether I'm a
hypocrite.


Because it thoroughly undercuts your claim that animals
have "rights".


Nonsense. Whether or not I am a hypocrite has no bearing on any moral
issue.

You don't really believe they do;


You've got no reason for thinking that. If I really don't believe they
do, then of course I'm not a hypocrite. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Your
job is to argue about whether they do or not, not about what I believe
or whether I'm a hypocrite.

nor
do you believe they are due equal moral consideration,
because you don't extend it to them yourself.


I do.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 11:53 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch wrote:

[..]
I do have some personal experience with cognitive
dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when
I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict
I experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the
brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed
shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental
clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to stop you
from threatening the existing belief.


So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.

"I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
all who was it hurting?"
Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo

"Deluding myself felt good."
Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3

And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 03:29 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, 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?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.
I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.
I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.
Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.

Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
know you can't.


You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.


You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
can't seem to support.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2007, 03:30 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza 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 blah blah blah
You contribute to animal death.
Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs.
No.
Yes - daily.
No, I don't
Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
Yawn.
Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
reason.
By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
sufficient in food and electricity.

No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
giving it up.


You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.

I don't think that you've shown
that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
should, but

Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
humans,


No, it's not.


Yes, it is.


and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
bullshit.


Non sequitur.


No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
your own preaching, so the preaching is bullshit.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 07:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 05:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 09:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017