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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 4:08*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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), >
> >>> 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.

>
> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. *It's natural you'd
> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.


I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
than everyone else's round here. Seems to me you waste about as much
time as everyone else.
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 4:01*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > *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?

>
> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.


So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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?

>>
>> Who says I'm not able?

>
> If you were able then why wouldn't you?


Lots of reasons. Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>>>> 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.

>>
>> Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>> as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>> essentially, flip a coin.
>>
>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>> <snicker> if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
>> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
>> consideration as rescuing the child.

>
> No, it doesn't.


It does.


>> That's why it's bullshit. It is
>> *OBVIOUS* to all right-thinking people that the child must be rescued.
>> It's something we all know intuitively is right.

>


  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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), >
>>>>> 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.

>>
>> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. It's natural you'd
>> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.

>
> I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
> than everyone else's round here.


Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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.


Your remark is bullshit.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>
>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>
> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?


On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 9:25*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * *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.

>
> Your remark is bullshit.
>


Actually, it's the obvious truth.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>
> > So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

>
> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you.


I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 9:23*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * *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?

>
> >> Who says I'm not able?

>
> > If you were able then why wouldn't you?

>
> Lots of reasons. *Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.


So you would apparently like us to believe.

As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
interests, and you can't produce any example of my telling you this
because I never did.
  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 9:24*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> 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), >
> >>>>> 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.

>
> >> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. *It's natural you'd
> >> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.

>
> > I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
> > than everyone else's round here.

>
> Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.


And how did you come to that conclusion?
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 9:24*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
> >>>> 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.

>
> >> Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
> >> as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
> >> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
> >> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
> >> essentially, flip a coin.

>
> >> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
> >> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
> >> <snicker> *if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> >> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> >> consideration as rescuing the child.

>
> > No, it doesn't.

>
> It does.
>


As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.

And I tell you what, every single moral philosopher will agree with me
on this one.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>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.


Sure it does. Why would you even want to pretend otherwise, when you should
be proud that it IS that way?
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>>> 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.

>
>Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>essentially, flip a coin.
>
>Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
><snicker> if saved -


How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that
would necessarily prevent him from being able to think about it, though he may
dishonestly claim to have lectured college students on that subject even though
they know more about than he ever will. A student going into animal research
certainly has a much better understanding about such values of life than a
person who is as mentally restricted as Rupert claims to be.

>"non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
>disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
>consideration as rescuing the child. That's why it's bullshit. It is
>*OBVIOUS* to all right-thinking people that the child must be rescued.
>It's something we all know intuitively is right.


Only if we're speciesist, which decent people are because it's good to be
speciesist.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
> >> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
> >>> 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.

>
> >Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
> >as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
> >a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
> >should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
> >essentially, flip a coin.

>
> >Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
> >one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
> ><snicker> if saved -

>
> * * How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
> about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that
> would necessarily prevent him from being able to think about it, though he may
> dishonestly claim to have lectured college students on that subject even though
> they know more about than he ever will. A student going into animal research
> certainly has a much better understanding about such values of life than a
> person who is as mentally restricted as Rupert claims to be.
>


I believe that you have not adequately defined the distinction between
lives of positive value and lives of negative value. This is not a
mental handicap. It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to
based on what you have written.

I have lectured university students about animal ethics, yes.

> >"non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> >disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> >consideration as rescuing the child. * That's why it's bullshit. *It is
> >*OBVIOUS* to all right-thinking people that the child must be rescued.
> >It's something we all know intuitively is right.

>
> * * Only if we're speciesist, which decent *people are because it's good to be
> speciesist.


The non-speciesists can agree as well.
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.

>
> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
> be proud that it IS that way?


It doesn't. You are attacking a straw man.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goo, and a stupid lying dog-fighting
cracker - lied:


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>>
>> Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>> as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>> essentially, flip a coin.
>>
>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>> <snicker> if saved -

>
> How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
> about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that


There's no mental handicap of any kind. You haven't defined your terms,
and they're not self evident in meaning. In fact, all you mean is "life".


  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 1:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>> Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>>>> as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>>>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>>>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>>>> essentially, flip a coin.

>>
>>>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>>>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>>>> <snicker> if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
>>>> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
>>>> consideration as rescuing the child.

>>
>>> No, it doesn't.

>>
>> It does.
>>

>
> As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.


I do understand exactly what it is. It's a bullshit ugly neologism used
as a clumsy, ineffectual club by morally bankrupt shitbags like you and
Peter Singer.
  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 1:36 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> 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), >
>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. It's natural you'd
>>>> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.

>>
>>> I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
>>> than everyone else's round here.

>>
>> Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.

>
> And how did you come to that conclusion?


Once again, you reveal your low time value.
  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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?

>>
>>>> Who says I'm not able?

>>
>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you?

>>
>> Lots of reasons. Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.

>
> So you would apparently like us to believe.


So it just happens to be.


> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
> interests,


Yes, you did.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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.

>>
>> Your remark is bullshit.
>>

>
> Actually, it's the obvious truth.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>
>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>>
>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

>>
>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you.

>
> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".


Yes, you do.
  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> 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


You're talking about abilities, not capacities.

> and one
> involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> of species.


No, I don't.




  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 7:38*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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

>
> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
>


No, I'm not.

> > and one
> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> > of species.

>
> No, I don't.


Good to hear.
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 1:31*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * *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.

>
> >> Your remark is bullshit.

>
> > Actually, it's the obvious truth.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>
> >>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

>
> >> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you..

>
> > I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".

>
> Yes, you do.


You are a foolish person.
  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 1:31*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * *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?

>
> >>>> Who says I'm not able?

>
> >>> If you were able then why wouldn't you?

>
> >> Lots of reasons. *Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.

>
> > So you would apparently like us to believe.

>
> So it just happens to be.
>
> > As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
> > consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
> > interests,

>
> Yes, you did.


You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I
didn't"; Yes, you did". You have put forward a claim that I once made
a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount
of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
interests. This is false, I have never made any such statement, and
you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because I
never have. You made the claim; the burden is on you to substantiate
it. You say that you are unwilling to waste your time substantiating
the claim; well, you have wasted just as much time engaging in a
childless and pointless "No, I didn't"; "Yes, you did" exchange. There
is no point in making claims that you are not willing to substantiate.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 1:30*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:36 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> 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), >
> >>>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. *It's natural you'd
> >>>> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.

>
> >>> I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
> >>> than everyone else's round here.

>
> >> Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.

>
> > And how did you come to that conclusion?

>
> Once again, you reveal your low time value.


As I've just mentioned, you reveal your low time value in the other
part of the thread, where you make a claim, say that you don't want to
waste your time substantiating the claim, and yet waste just as much
time engaging in a childish "No, I didn't"; "Yes, you did" exchange.

My posts do not indicate my low time value to any greater extent than
yours indicate your low time value.
  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 1:30*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
> >>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>> Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
> >>>> as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
> >>>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
> >>>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
> >>>> essentially, flip a coin.

>
> >>>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
> >>>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
> >>>> <snicker> * *if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> >>>> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> >>>> consideration as rescuing the child.

>
> >>> No, it doesn't.

>
> >> It does.

>
> > As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.

>
> I do understand exactly what it is.


Wrong. What you write clearly reveals that you have no understanding
of the concept.



  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:38:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Rupert" > wrote:


>> you discriminate on the basis of species.

>
>No, I don't.


Yes, you do, so stop lying. In a discussion with Rupert you defended
'discrimination on the basis of species' and went on to say that a
failure to discriminate on the basis of species demonstrates a mental
aberration.

"Discrimination is good. Specifically, failure to discriminate on the
basis of species is a form of mental aberration."
Dutch Jul 12 2008 http://tinyurl.com/d42km5o

You don't have a position, one way or the other, on any issue raised
on these animal-related forums, do you? You're a mass of
contradictions, and the reason why is because you don't have a genuine
position from which to argue. But you like to argue. You think you're
good at it. You never want to stop. And so you argue all sides as if
they're yours and change them about to suit the particular argument
you've found yourself floundering in. You're a stupid joke, Dutch.
  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > wrote:
>>>> > 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

>>
>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.
>>

>
> No, I'm not.


You are - you're just too thick to realize it. That's what I was trying
to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but
your plankiness prevented you from grasping it.


>>> and one
>>> involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
>>> of species.

>>
>> No, I don't.

>
> Good to hear.


  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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.

>>
>>>> Your remark is bullshit.

>>
>>> Actually, it's the obvious truth.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>
>>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>>
>>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

>>
>>>> On every possible dimension? No, of course not - and neither do you.

>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".

>>
>> Yes, you do.

>
> You are a foolish person.


No. You don't believe it, either.
  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > 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?

>>
>>>>>> Who says I'm not able?

>>
>>>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you?

>>
>>>> Lots of reasons. Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.

>>
>>> So you would apparently like us to believe.

>>
>> So it just happens to be.
>>
>>> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
>>> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
>>> interests,

>>
>> Yes, you did.

>
> You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I
> didn't"; Yes, you did".


Why bother, with a psychotic like you?


> You have put forward a claim that I once made
> a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount
> of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
> interests.


Correct; you did.


> This is false,


Nope; it's true.


> I have never made any such statement,


You have done.


> and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because
> I never have.


You most certainly have. It was when you said you couldn't be bothered
to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that
caused harm to animals. You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate
similar harm to humans. Clearly, you don't give the interests of the
animals you harm the same consideration. You continue to take medicines
that were routinely tested with lethal results on animals, but you would
never take medicines that were routinely tested with lethal results on
humans.
  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 6:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:30 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 1:36 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> 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), >
>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. It's natural you'd
>>>>>> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.

>>
>>>>> I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
>>>>> than everyone else's round here.

>>
>>>> Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.

>>
>>> And how did you come to that conclusion?

>>
>> Once again, you reveal your low time value.

>
> As I've just mentioned, you reveal your low time value in the other
> part of the thread,


No.


  #151 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 6:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:30 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 1:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>> Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>>>>>> as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>>>>>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>>>>>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>>>>>> essentially, flip a coin.

>>
>>>>>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>>>>>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>>>>>> <snicker> if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
>>>>>> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
>>>>>> consideration as rescuing the child.

>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't.

>>
>>>> It does.

>>
>>> As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.

>>
>> I do understand exactly what it is.

>
> Wrong.


Nope; I'm right.
  #152 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >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.

>>
>> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
>> be proud that it IS that way?

>
>It doesn't.


Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
it means?


  #153 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> >On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> >> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>> >>> 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.

>>
>> >Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>> >as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>> >a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>> >should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>> >essentially, flip a coin.

>>
>> >Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>> >one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>> ><snicker> if saved -

>>
>> * * How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
>> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
>> about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that
>> would necessarily prevent him from being able to think about it, though he may
>> dishonestly claim to have lectured college students on that subject even though
>> they know more about than he ever will. A student going into animal research
>> certainly has a much better understanding about such values of life than a
>> person who is as mentally restricted as Rupert claims to be.
>>

>
>I believe that you have not adequately defined the distinction between
>lives of positive value and lives of negative value.


You can't comprehend what it means even to yourself, much less to me.

>This is not a mental handicap.


It is a severe mental handicap if you're really as restricted as you claim,
and it's also a severe mental handicap if you're not really that restricted but
are lying about it.

>It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to
>based on what you have written.
>
>I have lectured university students about animal ethics, yes.


They knew more about it than you ever will, IF it really happened. Grade
school children know more about it than you do.

>> >"non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
>> >disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
>> >consideration as rescuing the child. * That's why it's bullshit. *It is
>> >*OBVIOUS* to all right-thinking people that the child must be rescued.
>> >It's something we all know intuitively is right.

>>
>> * * Only if we're speciesist, which decent *people are because it's good to be
>> speciesist.

>
>The non-speciesists can agree as well.


To the truly non-speciesist, species wouldn't matter. DUH!!!
  #154 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/18/2012 8:59 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 17, 11:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Of course it does. Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
>>>> as to which one we save from harm. So, if I see vehicles about to crush
>>>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
>>>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
>>>> essentially, flip a coin.
>>>
>>>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
>>>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
>>>> <snicker> if saved -
>>>
>>> How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
>>> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
>>> about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that
>>> would necessarily prevent him from being able to think about it, though he may
>>> dishonestly claim to have lectured college students on that subject even though
>>> they know more about than he ever will. A student going into animal research
>>> certainly has a much better understanding about such values of life than a
>>> person who is as mentally restricted as Rupert claims to be.
>>>

>>
>> I believe that you have not adequately defined the distinction between
>> lives of positive value and lives of negative value.

>
> You can't comprehend what it means


You can't give it any meaning, because you're lying about it. What
"lives of possitive [sic] value" means, to you, is existence. You want
livestock animals to exist, for your use, and *purely* for your use.
You don't care about the quality of their lives.
  #155 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it



"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 18, 7:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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

>>
>> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.


> No, I'm not.


Yes you are, because every member of the human species has the capacities of
a human which then manifest in the concurrent abilities barring some
accident or misfortune. If a human were born without a brain we would
probably consider euthanizing them, like Harrison.

>
>> > and one
>> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
>> > of species.

>>
>> No, I don't.

>
> Good to hear.


Look back to my original statement, I discriminate based on the whole
constellation of capacities held by humans, which *may* be held by some as
yet undiscovered species. I also discriminate between other non-human
species based on *their* sets of inherent capacities, e.g. a gorilla is
valued differently than a sea sponge. It is simply absurd to claim that one
is not a so-called "speciesist".





  #156 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it



"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:38:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Rupert" > wrote:

>
>>> you discriminate on the basis of species.

>>
>>No, I don't.

>
> Yes, you do, so stop lying. In a discussion with Rupert you defended
> 'discrimination on the basis of


Just shut up and read what I wrote yesterday, it clarifies that. Stop being
such a nitwit for once in your life.



  #157 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 5:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:38 am, > *wrote:
> >> > *wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 9:25 am, > *wrote:
> >>>> > *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

>
> >> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.

>
> > No, I'm not.

>
> You are - you're just too thick to realize it. *That's what I was trying
> to explain to you with the discussion of actuality and potentiality, but
> your plankiness prevented you from grasping it.
>


There was no discussion. You refused to engage in a discussion.

If I am mistaken in thinking that I am talking about capacities, then
perhaps you would have the goodness to explain why you think this is.
  #158 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 7:18*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >> > 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

>
> >> You're talking about abilities, not capacities.

> > No, I'm not.

>
> Yes you are, because every member of the human species has the capacities of
> a human which then manifest in the concurrent abilities barring some
> accident or misfortune. If a human were born without a brain we would
> probably consider euthanizing them, like Harrison.
>


I don't believe that any meaningful notion of "capacities" is
available on which this claim is plausible.

>
>
> >> > and one
> >> > involving a member of another species, you discriminate on the basis
> >> > of species.

>
> >> No, I don't.

>
> > Good to hear.

>
> Look back to my original statement, I discriminate based on the whole
> constellation of capacities held by humans, which *may* be held by some as
> yet undiscovered species. I also discriminate between other non-human
> species based on *their* sets of inherent capacities, e.g. a gorilla is
> valued differently than a sea sponge. It is simply absurd to claim that one
> is not a so-called "speciesist".


The sets of inherent capacities that individuals have is not uniform
across each species, on any meaningful construal of what "capacities"
means.
  #159 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 5:15*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 6:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 17, 4:01 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * *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.

>
> >>>> Your remark is bullshit.

>
> >>> Actually, it's the obvious truth.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >>>>>> That we all establish hierarchies or circles.

>
> >>>>> So you don't believe in any notion of human equality?

>
> >>>> On every possible dimension? *No, of course not - and neither do you.

>
> >>> I don't know what you mean by "on every possible dimension".

>
> >> Yes, you do.

>
> > You are a foolish person.

>
> No. *You don't believe it, either.


If you really think I don't believe it then that is rather amusing.
  #160 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 18, 5:19*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 6:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 1:31 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 1:35 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 17, 9:23 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2012 11:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 17, 4:09 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:45 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, George > * * * *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?

>
> >>>>>> Who says I'm not able?

>
> >>>>> If you were able then why wouldn't you?

>
> >>>> Lots of reasons. *Lack of ability doesn't enter into it.

>
> >>> So you would apparently like us to believe.

>
> >> So it just happens to be.

>
> >>> As I say, I have never told you that I don't give the same amount of
> >>> consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
> >>> interests,

>
> >> Yes, you did.

>
> > You don't appear capable of lifting the conversation beyond "No, I
> > didn't"; Yes, you did".

>
> Why bother, with a psychotic like you?
>


In order to make the conversation more edifying, obviously.

I'm not a psychotic, as anyone with a functioning brain would be
aware.

> > You have put forward a claim that I once made
> > a statement which logically entailed that I don't give the same amount
> > of consideration to nonhuman animals' interests as I give to human
> > interests.

>
> Correct; you did.
>


So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
it's not true.

> > This is false,

>
> Nope; it's true.
>


So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
it's not true, and endlessly asserting it over and over again without
the slightest attempt to substantiate it is truly lame.

> > I have never made any such statement,

>
> You have done.
>


See above.

> > and you cannot give an example of me making such a statement because
> > I never have.

>
> You most certainly have. *It was when you said you couldn't be bothered
> to adjust your "lifestyle" [bleaghhh] to eliminate products from it that
> caused harm to animals. *You *do* adjust your "lifestyle" to eliminate
> similar harm to humans.


No, I don't. If I lived in a dystopia where humans of similar
cognitive capacities to nonhuman animals were being harmed in the same
way as nonhuman animals are in fact being harmed by the production of
the products I consume, and the burdens involved in further harm
reduction were similar, then I would respond to the situation in the
same way.

> Clearly, you don't give the interests of the
> animals you harm the same consideration. *You continue to take medicines
> that were routinely tested with lethal results on animals, but you would
> never take medicines that were routinely tested with lethal results on
> humans.


I am using a generic brand of the medication that I use so I am not
financially rewarding the company that originally performed the tests.
If I lived in a dystopia where the only way I could obtain a
medication to reduce my risk of having another psychotic episode was
by means of buying products which were originally tested in harmful
ways on humans of similar cognitive capacities to the nonhuman animals
who were in fact harmed in the actual situation, then I would respond
to the situation in the same way. You would, too, if you had
experienced a psychotic episode and knew what it was like, and you're
not in any position to declare otherwise.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"