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
  #406 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2014, 07:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 22
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 8:51 am, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George 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.


Yes, you do.


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, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
experiments which show this premise to be problematic.


Have a go at it.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Yes, of course. It's the case of freak intelligence. It fails, because
it is not symmetric with a marginal human case. The actuality of the
chimp with freak intelligence entails the potentiality of moral
considerability, but the non-actuality of normal human cognition in the
marginal human does *not* entail the non-potentiality of being a moral
agent. We see this clearly with humans who are only temporarily
incapacitated, or with children who mostly will develop to be moral agents.


What do you mean by "potentiality"?


Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then without
knowing anything else about a human being, you know at least that he has
the potential to be or to become a moral actor. Furthermore, even when
the actuality is that a human is not a moral actor, that doesn't mean he
isn't potentially one. This is obviously true of normal human infants,
people in a reversible coma, people under anesthesia, people who are
asleep, and others.


Again: what do you *mean* by "potential"?


Cut the shit, Woopert. You know what is meant by it.


It is not membership /per se/ in the class of beings who as a matter of
species normality have the morally relevant trait that leads us to
include marginal humans and exclude all other animals; it is the
*meaning* of it, which is the potentiality to exercising those faculties.

There's another reason why the two marginal cases - freak-intelligent
chimp, comatose human - are not symmetric: we observe plenty of
marginal humans, most of whom develop or recover their faculty for moral
agency, but we have never observed a chimpanzee who can do mathematics
at a level that he ought to earn university admission, nor does anyone
reasonably expect we ever will.




  #407 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2014, 07:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 22
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:23 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.

The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
interests, that is the way the world works.


That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.


That has been well defended countless times, and you are aware of the
defenses.

  #408 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-10-2016, 07:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.
  #409 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 05:35 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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,


Bullshit.


and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.


So, you *are* a speciesist, just as I said. You hold humans to a
different moral standard. You view humans as morally superior to other
species, based solely on a trait they uniquely possess.

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, of course.

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 any greater degree
than nonhuman animals.


But they are of the *kind* of entity that *uniquely* can participate in
a moral community. No non-human animals can. The overwhelming majority
of humans can.

As has been shown countless times, your "marginal cases" garbage fails.
It *never* leads to the extension of greater moral consideration to dumb
non-human animals; all it *ever* leads to is a diminution of
consideration for the human marginal cases.

You and Singer want to perform horrific medical experiments on them.


That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
interests of members of our own species. Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.


Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.


No.

  #410 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 05:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton 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.


They are.


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 - far better than you, wobbler.



  #411 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 06:06 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton 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 they're saying. They're saying that humans are obliged
to act in a specific way due to a trait that sets them apart from all
other species. That's speciesism, in the vilest sense of the word.
It's exactly equivalent to saying that blacks are obliged to sit at the
back of the bus for a trait distinctive to their race.

"aras" are speciesists. This is not in rational dispute.

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 is the argument from marginal cases that is fatally
flawed.

  #412 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 06:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton 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?


Why isn't your paternal grandfather also your maternal
great-grandmother, you ****tard?

Sometimes, wobbler, the answer is: just because.




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.


No, I'm right.

  #413 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 06:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

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.

  #414 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 06:23 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George 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.


Yes, you do.









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, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
experiments which show this premise to be problematic.


Have a go at it.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Su the chimpanzee that has never existed and that no one has any
reason to think ever will exist.

Rights are something to aid in regulating relations in the real world,
not in some demented science fiction thought experiment cooked up by
psychotics.
  #415 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 06:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:
On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George wrote:
On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George 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.


Yes, you do.


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, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
experiments which show this premise to be problematic.


Have a go at it.


Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
understand advanced mathematics?


Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by
pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to
animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.


It would probably do both.


No.


You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".


The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.


The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
animals deserve equal moral consideration.


Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests
deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is
on you to explain why.


Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it
is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to
make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is
the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
That's how it works.


No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
in ethics.


Who says so? Peter Singer?


Peter Singer, and most other ethicists,


Bullshit.


That's a position he advocates polemically.
How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
the default starting position.


/argumentum ad populum/, but also certainly false.



  #416 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2016, 12:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news
On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:


Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species,


Bullshit.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10...n-orig-llr.cnn



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
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
"Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim [email protected] Vegan 38 07-03-2014 07:20 PM
My 12" carbon steel wok shopping continues after the wrong item wassent by the rude lady from The Wokshop" Manda Ruby General Cooking 22 28-06-2010 10:19 PM
PING . . . "-a-" I think I know about your RED FRUIT SOUP!!!(spelled wrong, sorry!) Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 1 03-07-2009 11:45 PM
What's wrong with "mother" John LaBella Sourdough 5 21-08-2008 09:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 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