On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>> to prove.
>>
>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> about who has the burden of proof

You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, but also that it is
the consensus of ethicists that equal consideration is due
suffering-capable entities regardless of species. You keep piling up
the burdens of proof that you then shirk.

On 4/15/2012 6:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>>>>> owninterests, that is the way the world works.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>>
>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>>
>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>>>>> I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
>>>>>> Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
>>>>>> equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
>>>>>> First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
>>>>>> all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
>>>>>> comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is.
>>>>>> Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
>>>>>> surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
>>>>>> With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
>>>>>> hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. Rather,
>>>>>> it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
>>>>>> That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: given
>>>>>> that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
>>>>>> majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
>>>>>> is on them.
>>
>>>>>> Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
>>>>>> with me. He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
>>>>>> particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
>>>>>> it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away. It
>>>>>> doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
>>>>>> presumption. Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
>>>>>> distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
>>>>>> With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
>>>>>> morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
>>>>>> to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
>>>>>> weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
>>>>>> moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
>>>>>> interests at all. However imperfectly people may have thought this
>>>>>> through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
>>>>>> interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.
>>
>>>>>> The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
>>>>>> at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
>>>>>> (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
>>>>>> owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
>>>>>> dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne...
>>>>>> A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
>>>>>> owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
>>>>>> the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMost US
>>>>>> households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
>>>>>> that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. I think
>>>>>> most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
>>>>>> their animals. They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
>>>>>> almost $13.5 billion on medical care. If people didn't give
>>>>>> considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
>>>>>> spend nearly as much.
>>
>>>>>> Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
>>>>>> to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
>>>>>> care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
>>>>>> themselves.
>>
>>>>> That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
>>>>> interests.
>>
>>>> It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
>>>> position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity.
>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> It does.
>
> When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal
> consideration of interests",

I don't care about that. I reject that principle, and I don't believe
you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of
ethics. You're bullshitting.

On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>>>>>> ethicist,
>>
>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>>>>>> of animals.
>>
>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>>
>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
>>>> you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>>
>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
>>> to humans',
>>
>> You aren't.
>
> Why do you think that?

You've told us.

On Apr 16, 4:58*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>> to prove.
>
> >>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> > Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> > about who has the burden of proof
>
> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,

Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
agree on this point, and my friend who is a PhD student in metaethics
agrees with me.

> You keep piling up
> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.

What do you want me to try to prove?

On Apr 16, 4:59*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 6:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 6:50 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 7:27 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > * * *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
> >>>>>>>>>> owninterests, that is the way the world works.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>
> >>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>> I should have elaborated in my original reply that it's a sick joke for
> >>>>>> Woopert to be saying that the "default position" in ethics is to give
> >>>>>> equal consideration to the interests of any suffering-capable entity.
> >>>>>> First of all, I don't believe Woopert has studied ethics rigorously at
> >>>>>> all, let alone to a degree that would permit him to say with such
> >>>>>> comical "authority" what the consensus position among ethicists is..
> >>>>>> Second, it is completely obvious, due to the amount of controversy
> >>>>>> surrounding it, that Singer's position is distinctly a minority view.
> >>>>>> With as much controversy over it as there clearly is, I find it very
> >>>>>> hard to believe it's the "default" or consensus view of ethics. *Rather,
> >>>>>> it's what Singer - and Woopert - would *want* to be the default view.
> >>>>>> That's why I maintain they are the ones with the burden of proof: *given
> >>>>>> that most ethicists (or so I intuitively believe) and the overwhelming
> >>>>>> majority of humans do *not* accept it as the default, the burden clearly
> >>>>>> is on them.
>
> >>>>>> Carl Cohen said something in "The Animal Rights Debate" that has stuck
> >>>>>> with me. *He wrote that when there is a huge majority holding a
> >>>>>> particular moral intuition, the overwhelming size of that majority gives
> >>>>>> it a particular weight that cannot simply be casually brushed away.. *It
> >>>>>> doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct intuition, but there's a
> >>>>>> presumption. *Now, both the human concept of ethics, and ethics as a
> >>>>>> distinct branch of philosophy, have been around literally for millennia.
> >>>>>> * * *With all that, the overwhelming majority of humans still consider it
> >>>>>> morally acceptable to give less weight to the interests of animals than
> >>>>>> to human interests, while at the same time most humans feel that *some*
> >>>>>> weight should be given to animals' interests, so it's not as if their
> >>>>>> moral intuition simply treats animals as holding no morally considerable
> >>>>>> interests at all. *However imperfectly people may have thought this
> >>>>>> through, they have given thought to it, and concluded that animals'
> >>>>>> interests deserve less moral consideration than humans'.
>
> >>>>>> The Humane Society of the US (HSUS) says that 39% of US households own
> >>>>>> at least one dog, and 33% of households own at least one cat
> >>>>>> (interestingly, there are about 8 million more owned cats in the US than
> >>>>>> owned dogs, so many more households have multiple cats than multiple
> >>>>>> dogs.)http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...facts/pet_owne...
> >>>>>> * * *A pet products professional association gives about the same number of
> >>>>>> owned cats and dogs, but says the percentage of households owning one or
> >>>>>> the other is higherhttp://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.aspMostUS
> >>>>>> households are comprised of more than one person, so it's very likely
> >>>>>> that more than 50% of Americans have a dog or a cat or both. *I think
> >>>>>> most people give a fair amount of consideration to the interests of
> >>>>>> their animals. *They spend over $50 billion a year on them, including
> >>>>>> almost $13.5 billion on medical care. *If people didn't give
> >>>>>> considerable weight to the interests of these animals, they wouldn't
> >>>>>> spend nearly as much.
>
> >>>>>> Woopert and his corrupt pal Singer are going to have to do a lot of work
> >>>>>> to convince people they ought to be providing the same amount of medical
> >>>>>> care and same quality of food to their animals as they provide for
> >>>>>> themselves.
>
> >>>>> That does not follow from the principle of equal consideration of
> >>>>> interests.
>
> >>>> It follows from the fact that your position is distinctly a minority
> >>>> position that has been implicitly reject by the vast majority of humanity.
>
> >>> No, it doesn't.
>
> >> It does.
>
> > When I wrote "That does not follow from the principle of equal
> > consideration of interests",
>
> I don't care about that.

You ought to care about what you are saying, otherwise people will get
the idea that you are a fool who babbles nonsense without rhyme or
reason.

> I reject that principle, and I don't believe
> you that "equal consideration" across species is the default position of
> ethics. *You're bullshitting.

Yes, I am certainly aware that you reject the principle.

You probably believe in some sort of equal consideration for humans
though, don't you? Would you be able to tell us more about that?

On Apr 16, 4:59*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> > * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> > * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> >>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> >>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> >>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> >>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> >>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>
> >>>>>> Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
> >>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
> >>>>>> of animals.
>
> >>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>
> >>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
> >>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
> >>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
> >>>> you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
> >>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> >>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> >>> to humans',
>
> >> You aren't.
>
> > Why do you think that?
>
> You've told us.

When did I tell you that?

On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> agree on this point,

You're full of shit on that point.

>> You keep piling up
>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> What do you want me to try to prove?

All of it.

On Apr 16, 2:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > * * *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"?
>
> >>>> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> >>>> native language.
>
> >>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
> >>> agents.
>
> >> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>
> > Why?
>
> **** off, time-waster.
>

You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?

On Apr 16, 5:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> > Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> > agree on this point,
>
> You're full of shit on that point.
>

Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, and
it might be fair to say that he would be in a better position to know
than you.

> >> You keep piling up
> >> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> > What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> All of it.

All of what?

On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>>
>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>>>>>>>> of animals.
>>
>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>>
>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
>>>>>> you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>>
>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
>>>>> to humans',
>>
>>>> You aren't.
>>
>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>> You've told us.
>
> When did I tell you that?

Several times over the last couple of years.

On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > 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"?
>>
>>>>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
>>>>>> native language.
>>
>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
>>>>> agents.
>>
>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> **** off, time-waster.
>>
>
> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?

The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
what I've already explained many times.

On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>>
>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
>>> agree on this point,
>>
>> You're full of shit on that point.
>>
>
> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,

Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.


>>>> You keep piling up
>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>> All of it.
>
> All of what?

All of your claims.

On Apr 16, 6:36*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> >>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> >>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> >>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> >>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> >>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
> >>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
> >>>>>>>> of animals.
>
> >>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>
> >>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
> >>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
> >>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
> >>>>>> you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
> >>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> >>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> >>>>> to humans',
>
> >>>> You aren't.
>
> >>> Why do you think that?
>
> >> You've told us.
>
> > When did I tell you that?
>
> Several times over the last couple of years.

Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?

On Apr 16, 6:36*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > * * * *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"?
>
> >>>>>> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> >>>>>> native language.
>
> >>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
> >>>>> agents.
>
> >>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>
> >>> Why?
>
> >> **** off, time-waster.
>
> > You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>
> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
> what I've already explained many times.

I didn't.

On Apr 16, 6:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> >>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> >>> agree on this point,
>
> >> You're full of shit on that point.
>
> > Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>
> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>

I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
ARA.

> >>>> You keep piling up
> >>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >> All of it.
>
> > All of what?
>
> All of your claims.

Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?

On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>>
>>>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>>>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>>>>>>>>>> of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
>>>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
>>>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
>>>>>>>> you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
>>>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>>
>>>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
>>>>>>> to humans',
>>
>>>>>> You aren't.
>>
>>>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>>>> You've told us.
>>
>>> When did I tell you that?
>>
>> Several times over the last couple of years.
>
> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?

I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. Perhaps
Derek will help you find one.

On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > 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"?
>>
>>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
>>>>>>>> native language.
>>
>>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
>>>>>>> agents.
>>
>>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>>
>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>> **** off, time-waster.
>>
>>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>>
>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
>> what I've already explained many times.
>
> I didn't.

You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.

On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>>
>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
>>>>> agree on this point,
>>
>>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>>
>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>>
>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
> ARA.

He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to
authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
established.


>>>>>> You keep piling up
>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>>>> All of it.
>>
>>> All of what?
>>
>> All of your claims.
>
> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?

Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests.

On Apr 16, 8:46*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> >>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> >>>>> agree on this point,
>
> >>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>
> >>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>
> >> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>
> > I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
> > ARA.
>
> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to
> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
> established.
>
> >>>>>> You keep piling up
> >>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >>>> All of it.
>
> >>> All of what?
>
> >> All of your claims.
>
> > Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>
> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests.

Would you care to prove their not, Goo?

On Apr 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > * * * * *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"?
>
> >>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> >>>>>>>> native language.
>
> >>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
> >>>>>>> agents.
>
> >>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>
> >>>>> Why?
>
> >>>> **** off, time-waster.
>
> >>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>
> >> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
> >> what I've already explained many times.
>
> > I didn't.
>
> You did. *You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.

I didn't. You have not explained many times or even once why /ex
ante/, all humans have the potential to be moral agents. One wonders
what the point of making the claim is if you have no interest in
defending it.

On Apr 16, 4:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> >>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> >>>>> agree on this point,
>
> >>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>
> >>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>
> >> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>
> > I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
> > ARA.
>
> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to
> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
> established.
>

He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA.
It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the
matter than you.

> >>>>>> You keep piling up
> >>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >>>> All of it.
>
> >>> All of what?
>
> >> All of your claims.
>
> > Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>
> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests.

Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal
consideration, yes? Or no?

On Apr 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> >>>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> >>>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> >>>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> >>>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
> >>>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
> >>>>>>>>>> of animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
> >>>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
> >>>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
> >>>>>>>> you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
> >>>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> >>>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> >>>>>>> to humans',
>
> >>>>>> You aren't.
>
> >>>>> Why do you think that?
>
> >>>> You've told us.
>
> >>> When did I tell you that?
>
> >> Several times over the last couple of years.
>
> > Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?
>
> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. *Perhaps
> Derek will help you find one.

I have never told you any such thing. You can't produce any citations
to support your claim because they don't exist.

On 4/16/2012 11:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > 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"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
>>>>>>>>>> native language.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
>>>>>>>>> agents.
>>
>>>>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> **** off, time-waster.
>>
>>>>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>>
>>>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
>>>> what I've already explained many times.
>>
>>> I didn't.
>>
>> You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.
>
> I didn't.

You did. It's just one more in a string of attempts at wasting my time.

On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>>>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
>>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>>
>>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
>>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
>>>>>>> agree on this point,
>>
>>>>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>>
>>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>>
>>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>>
>>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
>>> ARA.
>>
>> He's still a radical lying partisan. You're trying to appeal to
>> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
>> established.
>>
>
> He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA.

That's nice. I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that
the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be
given to entities' interests irrespective of species. That's a
*normative* ethical prescription.

It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the
field of ethics and elsewhere.



> It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the
> matter than you.

Meta-ethics is not normative ethics.


>>>>>>>> You keep piling up
>>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>>
>>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>>
>>>>>> All of it.
>>
>>>>> All of what?
>>
>>>> All of your claims.
>>
>>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>>
>> Yes: that equal consideration is due animals' interests.
>
> Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal
> consideration, yes? Or no?

No - and neither do you.

On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
>>>>>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
>>>>>>>>>>>> of animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. You
>>>>>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
>>>>>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
>>>>>>>>>> you give to humans'. You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
>>>>>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
>>>>>>>>> to humans',
>>
>>>>>>>> You aren't.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>>>>>> You've told us.
>>
>>>>> When did I tell you that?
>>
>>>> Several times over the last couple of years.
>>
>>> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?
>>
>> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. Perhaps
>> Derek will help you find one.
>
> I have never told you any such thing.

You certainly have.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:39:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>wrote:
>
>>On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.
>>>
>>> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>>> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>>> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>>> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> >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.
>>>
>>> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>>> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>>> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>>
>>That does not follow.
>
> That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
>would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
>everything...?

You sure don't know anything worthwhile about this topic either Rupert,
since again you can't handle the basics.

On Apr 16, 8:37*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > * * * * * *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"?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. *It's not a difficult word, and English is your
> >>>>>>>>>> native language.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
> >>>>>>>>> agents.
>
> >>>>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>
> >>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>> **** off, time-waster.
>
> >>>>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>
> >>>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
> >>>> what I've already explained many times.
>
> >>> I didn't.
>
> >> You did. *You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.
>
> > I didn't.
>
> You did. *It's just one more in a string of attempts at wasting my time..

If you're so worried about wasting your time then why do you spend so
much time on this newsgroup?

On Apr 16, 8:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:46 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 11:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 8:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the moral point of view,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to prove.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
> >>>>>>>>>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> >>>>>>>>> about who has the burden of proof
>
> >>>>>>>> You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
> >>>>>>>> justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it,
>
> >>>>>>> Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> >>>>>>> agree on this point,
>
> >>>>>> You're full of shit on that point.
>
> >>>>> Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so,
>
> >>>> Your "ara" radical pal is a lying partisan.
>
> >>> I'm not talking about John Hadley. It's another guy, and he's not an
> >>> ARA.
>
> >> He's still a radical lying partisan. *You're trying to appeal to
> >> authority, when the credentials of the so-called authority are not
> >> established.
>
> > He is someone who is doing a PhD in metaethics, and he is not an ARA.
>
> That's nice. *I still don't see that he would be qualified to say that
> the "default position" of ethics is that equal consideration ought to be
> given to entities' interests irrespective of species. *That's a
> *normative* ethical prescription.
>

Quite, but in the course of doing a PhD in metaethics one becomes
quite knowledgeable about normative ethics as well. The different
areas of moral philosophy are linked.

> It also is a highly controversial one, disputed by many people in the
> field of ethics and elsewhere.
>

Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based
on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
proof is on the speciesist.

> > It is reasonable to suppose that he would be better-informed about the
> > matter than you.
>
> Meta-ethics is not normative ethics.
>

I know that. My remark still stands.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> You keep piling up
> >>>>>>>> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> >>>>>>> What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> >>>>>> All of it.
>
> >>>>> All of what?
>
> >>>> All of your claims.
>
> >>> Can you name a claim I've made that I haven't proved?
>
> >> Yes: *that equal consideration is due animals' interests.
>
> > Okay. So you believe all human interests are entitled to equal
> > consideration, yes? Or no?
>
> No - and neither do you.

What do you believe about humans, then?

On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.
>
> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> >> . . .
>
> >> >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.
>
> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
> >That does not follow.
>
> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
> everything...?

Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
of a snake as about the death of a human child.

On Apr 17, 12:42*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:39:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 9, 10:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.
>
> >>> That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> >>> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> >>> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> >>> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> >>> . . .
>
> >>> >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.
>
> >>> Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> >>> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> >>> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
> >>That does not follow.
>
> > * *That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
> >would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
> >everything...?
>
> * * You sure don't know anything worthwhile about this topic either Rupert,
> since again you can't handle the basics.

Actually you're wrong about that, but on the other hand if that is
what you think then it becomes a bit unclear what would motivate you
to talk to me about it.

"Rupert" > wrote

> Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
> suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
> opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based
> on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
> proof is on the speciesist.

The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are not
actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be to
imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth
that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would
automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would not
be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire
constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that other
"isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate against.
The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
misconception.

There's your proof, and explanation.

On Apr 17, 9:25*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Yes, you're right that it is highly controversial, and I never
> > suggested otherwise, but he confirmed my belief that the majority
> > opinion of ethicists is that different amounts of consideration based
> > on species is something that needs to be justified, the burden of
> > proof is on the speciesist.
>
> The consideration differences that exist in so-called "speciesism" are not
> actually based on species. One thought experiment to illustrate would be to
> imagine that a friendly extraterrestrial race of beings arrived on earth
> that had superior intellectual capacities to humans. That species would
> automatically be given full consideration equal to humans, and it would not
> be based on species, it would be based on the totality of the entire
> constellation of capacities inherent *in* the species. The reason that other
> "isms" like racism and sexism are wrong is that they are based on
> misconceptions about the capacities of the groups they discriminate against.
> The discrimination we have against sea sponges is not based on a
> misconception.
>
> There's your proof, and explanation.

But when confronted with two cases, one involving a member of your own
species who lacks the usual capacities for your species, and one
involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
of species.

On Apr 16, 8:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2012 8:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 4:59 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/15/2012 6:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:49 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 4:27 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 11:29 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * * *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.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean like you defended your assertion, by claiming that most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ethicists agree with you? Well I can't honestly say I've ever met an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ethicist,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nor has Woopert...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but if they think that way then they are different than every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other person or animal that I am aware of. No, you're wrong here, in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact your description of your own moral calculations proves it. You have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that adjusting your lifestyle to avoid causing harm to animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is secondary to maintaining a suitable career and lifestyle for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself, as it should be.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. *Woopert essentially has refused to make any alteration in his
> >>>>>>>>>>>> life *whatever* to attempt to give equal consideration to the interests
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That is quite obvious nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, it's quite obviously true because *you* told us, explicitly. *You
> >>>>>>>>>> said that you can't - actually, won't - do all that you might do to
> >>>>>>>>>> ensure you are giving the same consideration to animals' interests that
> >>>>>>>>>> you give to humans'. *You said you "needed" to do things to advance your
> >>>>>>>>>> career that prevent you from determining which foods produce the least harm.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I am giving the same consideration to animals' interests that I give
> >>>>>>>>> to humans',
>
> >>>>>>>> You aren't.
>
> >>>>>>> Why do you think that?
>
> >>>>>> You've told us.
>
> >>>>> When did I tell you that?
>
> >>>> Several times over the last couple of years.
>
> >>> Can you show me one occasion on which I did so?
>
> >> I could, but I won't - you're just trying to waste my time. *Perhaps
> >> Derek will help you find one.
>
> > I have never told you any such thing.
>
> You certainly have.

Then why is it that you are not able to show me where?

On 4/16/2012 11:45 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:37 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 11:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 4:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 6:36 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 3:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 5:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, George > 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"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop wasting time. It's not a difficult word, and English is your
>>>>>>>>>>>> native language.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not plausible that all humans have the potential to be moral
>>>>>>>>>>> agents.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> /ex ante/, all humans do have that potential.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>>>> **** off, time-waster.
>>
>>>>>>> You think it's a waste of time to try to defend your position?
>>
>>>>>> The attempted time wasting is when you bitchily demand that I explain
>>>>>> what I've already explained many times.
>>
>>>>> I didn't.
>>
>>>> You did. You attempt to waste my time in this manner quite often, actually.
>>
>>> I didn't.
>>
>> You did. It's just one more in a string of attempts at wasting my time.
>
> If you're so worried about wasting your time then why do you spend so
> much time on this newsgroup?

I don't.