On Apr 18, 5:19*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

Yes.

On Apr 18, 5:19*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

Apparently there is no hope of curing your delusion of competence.

On Apr 18, 5:59*pm, dh@. wrote:
> 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.
>

It's your term, not mine. It's your job to provide a satisfactory
definition, and you haven't.

> >This is not a mental handicap.
>
> * * It is a severe mental handicap if you're really as restricted as you claim,

It's not a restriction. It's an inability on your part to provide a
satisfactory definition of one of your central terms.

> 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.
>

You are wrong.

> >> >"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!!!

But the question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
fulfilment would be thwarted by the death would matter.

On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
> 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?

It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
belong.

The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant in this
context, and it is different in the two different cases. So non-
speciesism does not require that you judge that there is no moral
basis for preferring to rescue the child.

On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > 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.

There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though.

On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > 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.

You don't find anything amusing about it.

On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > 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,

You sure are.


>>> 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.

It is true.


>>> This is false,
>>
>> Nope; it's true.
>>
>
> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because

Substantiated.


>>> I have never made any such statement,
>>
>> You have done.
>>
>
> See above.

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.

You do.


>
>> 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.

Irrelevant; a bullshit lawyerly sophism.

On 4/18/2012 10:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes.

No.

On 4/18/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Apparently there is no hope of curing your delusion of competence.

I operate under no such delusion.

On Apr 18, 8:39*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > *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.
>
> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you
explicitly refused to tell me.

On Apr 18, 8:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > *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.
>
> You don't find anything amusing about it.

Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.

On Apr 18, 8:52*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > *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,
>
> You sure are.
>

You are a foolish person.

> >>> 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.
>
> It is true.
>

Then why are you unable to substantiate it?

> >>> This is false,
>
> >> Nope; it's true.
>
> > So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
>
> Substantiated.
>

Pffft.

> >>> I have never made any such statement,
>
> >> You have done.
>
> > See above.
>
> 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.
>
> You do.
>

There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to
humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar.

>
>
> >> 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.
>
> Irrelevant; a bullshit lawyerly sophism.

On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> You don't find anything amusing about it.
>
> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.

Same again.

On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though.
>
> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you
> explicitly refused to tell me.

That's a lie.

On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > 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,
>>
>> You sure are.
>>
>
> You are a foolish person.
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> It is true.
>>
>
> Then why are you unable to substantiate it?
>
>>>>> This is false,
>>
>>>> Nope; it's true.
>>
>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
>>
>> Substantiated.
>>
>
> Pffft.
>
>>>>> I have never made any such statement,
>>
>>>> You have done.
>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> You do.
>>
>
> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to
> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar.

Bullshit. You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in
far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products
you consume do in fact cause to animals.

This is one of the fundamental criticisms of "aras", and it applies to
you with all the force it applies to others. You are a hypocrite. You
take shortcuts in life that actually or potentially harm the interests
of animals that you wouldn't think of taking regarding humans.

You're just a ****ing liar. You know you're beat on this, but because
you're a stubborn and supremely arrogant shitbag suffering from
"smartest boy in class" syndrome, you just try to brazen it out.


>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Irrelevant; a bullshit lawyerly sophism.
>

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object, or
on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still answered
though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities of
*that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are assumptions
involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of impairment
may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent capacity
is about.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > 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.

It's pretty uniform. I don't see any eagles doing things that would be
considered outside the normal realm of the capacities of eagles. Human
capacity covers a pretty wide range, which is kind of the point.

On Apr 18, 11:57*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object, or
> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still answered
> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities of
> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are assumptions
> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of impairment
> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent capacity
> is about.
>

As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
"inherent capacity" here.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> It's pretty uniform. I don't see any eagles doing things that would be
> considered outside the normal realm of the capacities of eagles. Human
> capacity covers a pretty wide range, which is kind of the point.

On Apr 18, 9:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * *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.
>
> >> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though.
>
> > I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you
> > explicitly refused to tell me.
>
> That's a lie.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....9?dmode=source

On Apr 18, 9:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * *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.
>
> >> You don't find anything amusing about it.
>
> > Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.
>
> Same again.

So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come
from?

On Apr 18, 9:44*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > * *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,
>
> >> You sure are.
>
> > You are a foolish person.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > Then why are you unable to substantiate it?
>
> >>>>> This is false,
>
> >>>> Nope; it's true.
>
> >>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
>
> >> Substantiated.
>
> > Pffft.
>
> >>>>> I have never made any such statement,
>
> >>>> You have done.
>
> >>> See above.
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> You do.
>
> > There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to
> > humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar.
>
> Bullshit. *You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in
> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products
> you consume do in fact cause to animals.
>

It's not bullshit. I've already explained it. If I lived in a dystopia
where humans with similar cognitive capacities to the nonhuman animals
actually harmed were suffering similar harms, and the burdens involved
in avoiding buying the products were similar, then I would respond to
the situation in the same way.

> This is one of the fundamental criticisms of "aras", and it applies to
> you with all the force it applies to others. *You are a hypocrite. *You
> take shortcuts in life that actually or potentially harm the interests
> of animals that you wouldn't think of taking regarding humans.
>
> You're just a ****ing liar. *You know you're beat on this, but because
> you're a stubborn and supremely arrogant shitbag suffering from
> "smartest boy in class" syndrome, you just try to brazen it out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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..
>
> >> Irrelevant; a bullshit lawyerly sophism.

On Apr 13, 12:26*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 12:00 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.

On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > 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.
>>
>>>> There was. You didn't contribute anything to it, though.
>>
>>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you
>>> explicitly refused to tell me.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk....9?dmode=source

No; this:

You, cluelessly:
What do you mean by "potentiality"?

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

I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. The fact you cynically
pretended not to understand it is not my problem.

You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one.

On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > 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.
>>
>>>> You don't find anything amusing about it.
>>
>>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.
>>
>> Same again.
>
> So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come
> from?

That's kind of a pointless question. Here's a better one, psycho:
where does your impulse to waste time originate?

On 4/19/2012 4:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > 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,
>>
>>>> You sure are.
>>
>>> You are a foolish person.
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>> Then why are you unable to substantiate it?
>>
>>>>>>> This is false,
>>
>>>>>> Nope; it's true.
>>
>>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
>>
>>>> Substantiated.
>>
>>> Pffft.
>>
>>>>>>> I have never made any such statement,
>>
>>>>>> You have done.
>>
>>>>> See above.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> You do.
>>
>>> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to
>>> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar.
>>
>> Bullshit. You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in
>> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products
>> you consume do in fact cause to animals.
>>
>
> It's not bullshit. I've already explained it.

You didn't - you waffled with bullshit, as usual.

It is fully established that you give different consideration to the
interests of animals than you do to humans.

On 4/19/2012 4:23 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 13, 12:26 am, > wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 12:00 am, > wrote:
>>>> > wrote
>>
>>>>> I don't see why my behaviour is inconsistent with equal consideration.
>>
>>>> You have based your lifestyle on having a job and an urban apartment near
>>>> shops and all that so that you can pursue your career and other personal
>>>> interests in a reasonable fashion. That means your default consideration
>>>> is
>>>> yourself, as it must be. From that you presumably have made adjustments
>>>> and
>>>> sacrifices to satisfy your desire to reduce suffering to animals, reduce
>>>> air
>>>> pollution, help the homeless, or whatever else you think is important.
>>>> But
>>>> your consideration to these goals is not equal to the consideration you
>>>> give
>>>> to your own interests, it can't be. You couldn't possibly give equal
>>>> consideration to all other entities with interests, much less those who
>>>> are
>>>> in need, or even those you are aware of. It's not possible. You can do *a
>>>> few* things, that's all. That's all anyone could expect you to do.
>>
>>> I never said you weren't allowed to give special priority to your own
>>> interests, I said that was something that required a justification.
>>
>> What is your justification for the special consideration you give to your
>> own interests?
>
> You mean my justification for continuing to buy the products of plant-
> based agriculture?

The special consideration you give to your own interests, shitbag.
Answer Dutch's question, cocksucker; stop trying to control the debate.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
>> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
>> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object,
>> or
>> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
>> answered
>> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities
>> of
>> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
>> assumptions
>> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
>> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
>> impairment
>> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
>> capacity
>> is about.
>>
>
> As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
> "inherent capacity" here.

Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
navigation using sonar?

On Apr 19, 4:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 4:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 8:39 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2012 10:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 5:13 pm, George > * * *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.
>
> >>>> There was. *You didn't contribute anything to it, though.
>
> >>> I asked you to explain what you meant by "potential" and you
> >>> explicitly refused to tell me.
>
> >> That's a lie.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/7083c141346b...
>
> No; this:
>
> * * * You, cluelessly:
> * * * What do you mean by "potentiality"?
>
> * * * Me, helpfully:
> * * * Because humans are the unique class who are moral agents, then
> * * * without knowing anything else about a human being, you know at
> * * * least that he has the potential to be or to become a moral actor.
> * * * Furthermore, even when the actuality is that a human is not a
> * * * moral actor, that doesn't mean he isn't potentially one. *This is
> * * * obviously true of normal human infants, people in a reversible
> * * * coma, people under anesthesia, people who are asleep, and others.
>
> I explained it, cocksucker, in plain English. *The fact you cynically
> pretended not to understand it is not my problem.
>
> You're a very bad liar, Woopert - a liar, to be sure, but a very bad one.

No, actually, in that passage from yourself which you quoted you do
not explain what you mean by "potentiality".

On Apr 19, 10:13*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> Sure there is. What are the cognitive capacities of say, a chicken, or a
> >> housefly? That is a broad question that recognizes that some chickens or
> >> houseflies may have been born retarded, have been hit by a blunt object,
> >> or
> >> on the other hand may be especially clever. The question can still
> >> answered
> >> though. It is different than asking, "what are the cognitive capacities
> >> of
> >> *that specific* chicken or housefly?", in which case there are
> >> assumptions
> >> involved. In either case you can be pretty damn confident of the upper
> >> limits, which is the main thing. Any being through some form of
> >> impairment
> >> may lose some or all of it's abilities, that is not what inherent
> >> capacity
> >> is about.
>
> > As I say, I don't believe you are using any meaningful notion of
> > "inherent capacity" here.
>
> Would you not concede that bats are born with the inherent capacity of
> navigation using sonar?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, yes.

On Apr 19, 4:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 4:20 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:41 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 5:15 pm, George > * * *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.
>
> >>>> You don't find anything amusing about it.
>
> >>> Again, if you really believe that then that too is rather amusing.
>
> >> Same again.
>
> > So, where exactly does your confidence in these beliefs of yours come
> > from?
>
> That's kind of a pointless question.

Well, it was a question that was of interest to me.

> Here's a better one, psycho:
> where does your impulse to waste time originate?

Why is that a better question? And why do you think that I "waste
time" more than you do?

On Apr 19, 4:48*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 4:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:44 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2012 10:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > * * *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,
>
> >>>> You sure are.
>
> >>> You are a foolish person.
>
> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> It is true.
>
> >>> Then why are you unable to substantiate it?
>
> >>>>>>> This is false,
>
> >>>>>> Nope; it's true.
>
> >>>>> So you claim but you are unable to substantiate the claim, because
>
> >>>> Substantiated.
>
> >>> Pffft.
>
> >>>>>>> I have never made any such statement,
>
> >>>>>> You have done.
>
> >>>>> See above.
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>>> You do.
>
> >>> There are no "similar harms" to humans. The cases involving harm to
> >>> humans which actually occur are not relevantly similar.
>
> >> Bullshit. *You wouldn't hesitate to boycott a company that engaged in
> >> far less harm to humans' interests than those companies whose products
> >> you consume do in fact cause to animals.
>
> > It's not bullshit. I've already explained it.
>
> You didn't - you waffled with bullshit, as usual.
>
> It is fully established that you give different consideration to the
> interests of animals than you do to humans.

Wrong.