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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/20/2012 10:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 9:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 8:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 5:31 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:43 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:52 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mean what I said. You said that giving special priority to your own
>>>>>>>>>> interests required a justification, what is yours?

>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are referring to my buying products whose production harms
>>>>>>>>> animals, my justification for that is that it gives me opportunities
>>>>>>>>> to reduce other forms of suffering

>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You buy the products whose production harms animals simply
>>>>>>>> because you like them. At no time and in no way do you calculate that
>>>>>>>> buy some amount of harm-causing product X will enable you to buy less
>>>>>>>> harm-causing product Y. Cut the bullshit.

>>
>>>>>>> I was referring to the fact that buying the products of plant-based
>>>>>>> agriculture is the only way that I can hold down my current job, which
>>>>>>> gives me opportunities to donate money to charities which are
>>>>>>> effective at reducing suffering in the Third World. Thus, overall I
>>>>>>> reduce suffering to a greater extent than I otherwise would.

>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. You don't choose your work/leisure/consumption basket of
>>>>>> goods and services with a goal to maximizing your contribution to
>>>>>> suffering reduction.

>>
>>>>> Not to maximise it, no, but contributing to suffering reduction is one
>>>>> of my goals, and my consumption of the products of plant-based
>>>>> agriculture is rational with respect to this goal, for the reasons
>>>>> explained.

>>
>>>>>> Cut the bullshit.

>>
>>>>>>>> You buy stuff because you like it. In terms of the products you *do*
>>>>>>>> buy, you don't engage in any sort of calculation to see how it fits into
>>>>>>>> an overall strategy of harm reduction.

>>
>>>>>>> But I do engage in research about what are the most effective
>>>>>>> strategies for suffering reduction

>>
>>>>>> No, you don't.

>>
>>>>> Yes, I do.

>>
>>>> You don't. You've said you don't. You say "there's no data", and you
>>>> throw up your hands and quit. You do not do any research into how
>>>> further to reduce harm. No "vegan" does. Stop lying.

>>
>>> I wasn't actually referring to efforts to reduce the suffering
>>> associated with producing the food I eat.

>>
>> I was, and I made it clear that I was, so necessarily, so were you.
>>

>
> No, you didn't make it clear


I did.


>> Cut the bullshit. You give different moral consideration to the
>> interests of humans and animals. You give greater and heftier
>> consideration to the interests of humans. Without even thinking about
>> it, you are naturally much more cautious not to harm the interests of
>> humans than you are for animals.
>>

>
> You've given no argument for these assertions.


I've given evidence for them.

>
>>>>>> The basic fact is, you lead your life in such a way that you are giving
>>>>>> unequal consideration to human and animal interests. If you learned
>>>>>> that human interests were as casually harmed by the production of some
>>>>>> product you consume as animal interests are harmed, in ways known to
>>>>>> you, by products you do consume, you would stop consuming those products
>>>>>> in the first group.

>>
>>>>> Not if the burden of doing so was comparable to the burden of my
>>>>> boycotting commercial agriculture.

>>
>>>> You're still bullshitting.

>>
>>> What grounds do you have for thinking so?

>>
>> I've shown that you give more consideration to the interests of humans
>> than you do to those of animals, so when you say you give equal
>> consideration, I know you're bullshitting.
>>

>
> Showing something involves giving an argument,


False. It sometimes only involves supplying evidence, which you
thoughtfully have done for us.


>>
>>
>>
>>>> You're trying to play a lawyerly game, and
>>>> it fails from the start.

>>
>>> Why?

>>
>>>>>> You make more effort to know and pay more attention
>>>>>> to how the welfare of humans is affected by the products you consume or
>>>>>> might consume than you do with respect to animals.

>>
>>>>> No.

>>
>>>> Yes. Proved.

>>
>>> You've offered no evidence for the contention whatsoever.

>>
>> Of course I have,

>
> Actually,


Actually, you were bullshitting again.


>> and you've seen it. Yes, yes, I know: "where?
>> when?" Go back and look.
>>
>>>>>> For example, you are
>>>>>> aware of allegations of terrible working conditions for Chinese workers
>>>>>> in factories and facilities that make Apple Computer products. You are
>>>>>> aware of them, and you expect the allegations to be investigated and, if
>>>>>> found to be true, remediated. You *do not care* about agricultural
>>>>>> practices that harm animals in the course of producing the foods you
>>>>>> eat. You just close your eyes to it, say it's not really of any concern
>>>>>> to you.

>>
>>>>> You have no rational grounds for saying I don't care about it.

>>
>>>> I do.

>>
>>> What are they?

>>
>> You've told us. Go back and look.
>>

>
> Wrong.


No, right.


>>>> You prove it for us every time.

>>
>>>> You're massively a hypocrite.

>>
>>> So you keep saying, but

>>
>> I've proved it.

>
> Wrong.


No, right.
  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...

>>
>> >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> ...

>>
>> >> >> > 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.

>>
>> >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> DNA
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> bats.

>>
>> >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>> >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>> >> > capacity
>> >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>> >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> lot
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>> >> >> "species"
>> >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>> >> >> species
>> >> >> .
>> >> >> We
>> >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> fruit
>> >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> give
>> >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>> >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>> >> > the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>> >> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>> > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>> >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>> >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>> >> based
>> >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>> >> their
>> >> species.

>>
>> > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>> > are entitled to, for example?

>>
>> A lot.

>
> Okay, what about pigs?


Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.


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

On Apr 20, 8:17*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 10:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:29 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * *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".

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
> >>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're
> >>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
> >>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
> >>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>
> >>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
> >>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this.

>
> >>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
> >>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>
> >>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
> >>>>>>> agency.

>
> >>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>
> >>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
> >>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
> >>>>>> you know it.

>
> >>>>> No.

>
> >>>> Yes.

>
> >>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
> >>> in every case.

>
> >>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
> >>>>>> * * *Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
> >>>>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>
> >>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
> >>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
> >>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
> >>>>> universally so.

>
> >>>> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral
> >>>> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is
> >>>> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
> >>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement
> >>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>
> >>> Yes, all right.

>
> >> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting
> >> the wrong meaning.

>
> > What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
> > abilities which they in fact possess.

>
> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
> critics of amc say it would.


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

On Apr 20, 8:25*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 10:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:32 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * *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".

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
> >>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're
> >>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
> >>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
> >>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>
> >>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
> >>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this.

>
> >>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
> >>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>
> >>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
> >>>>>>> agency.

>
> >>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>
> >>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
> >>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
> >>>>>> you know it.

>
> >>>>> No.

>
> >>>> Yes.

>
> >>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
> >>> in every case.

>
> >> In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral
> >> agent.

>
> > Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child
> > is one example.

>
> You stupid plodding ****: *until you *know* the child is anencephalic,
> you expect a human child to become a moral agent. *You do *not* say,
> "There is 'only' a 99.99% chance that that pregnant woman is going to
> give birth to a baby with a normal brain, therefore I'm not going to be
> 100% cautious in not causing her an injury that might result in the loss
> of her child."
>
> When you hear that a woman is pregnant, you don't start thinking of
> giving or withholding moral consideration to the baby she is likely to
> bear based on your statistical estimate of whether or not it will be
> born anencephalic, you stupid ****. *You *EXPECT* it will be born with a
> brain and will develop into a moral agent.
>


Yes, of course you do, because that is what is most likely to happen,
but nevertheless it does not happen in all cases. The statement "If a
being is human, then you know a priori that that being has the
potential to become a moral agent" is false. The statement "If a being
is human, then it is a priori reasonable to have the expectation that
it has the potential to become a moral agent" is true.

> I'm getting tired of your blatant sophistry and raging intellectual
> dishonesty.
>


You could always shut up and go away, then.

> >> You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral
> >> agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category
> >> "human", and the subject in question is human.

>
> > That's an obvious fallacy.

>
> No, it is not, and you know it. *It is a fact. *You think "human = moral
> agent"; you not think "human = 99.978% chance of being moral agent".
>
> Stop bullshitting. *We're tired of it.
>


My remark was correct.

> >>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >> No, it doesn't. *It refers to before having the further information.

>
> Asshole. *You were just time-wasting again.


Your statement was a statement about certain a priori knowledge. If
you just meant a reasonable a priori expectation, you should have said
so.
  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 20, 8:32*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >> > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> ...

>
> >> >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> ...

>
> >> >> >> > 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.

>
> >> >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
> >> >> >> some
> >> >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> DNA
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> bats.

>
> >> >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
> >> >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >> >> > capacity
> >> >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>
> >> >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> lot
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >> >> >> "species"
> >> >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >> >> >> species
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> We
> >> >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> fruit
> >> >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> give
> >> >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>
> >> >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
> >> >> > the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >> >> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >> > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >> >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >> >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
> >> >> based
> >> >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
> >> >> their
> >> >> species.

>
> >> > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >> > are entitled to, for example?

>
> >> A lot.

>
> > Okay, what about pigs?

>
> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.


Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
in, then?

http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...s_Dec_05. pdf


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

On Apr 20, 8:27*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 10:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:33 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 8:55 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 5:24 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:11 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:40 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:53 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:47 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:47 pm, George > * * * * * *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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, it wasn't. *It was just time-wasting.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting
> >>>>>>>>> exercise,

>
> >>>>>>>> Nope. *That's always you.

>
> >>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation.

>
> >>>>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition.

>
> >>>>> I know.

>
> >>>> So does almost everyone.

>
> >>> No, only those

>
> >> Almost everyone. *"ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people
> >> have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to
> >> morality.

>
> > Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most
> > people have considered it, no.

>
> On some unspoken level, most have.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

> You are wrong.
>
> This is another example of your misplaced belief in your own
> exceptionalism. *You're just staggeringly egotistical and arrogant.>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a better one, psycho:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> where does your impulse to waste time originate?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why is that a better question?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's one that is of interest to me, and I care more about my interests
> >>>>>>>>>> than yours, which you tell me is ethical.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, ask yourself where does your impulse to waste time originate,

>
> >>>>>>>> I don't have that impulse; you do.

>
> >>>>>>> So you don't have the impulse to waste time; this conversation has
> >>>>>>> been a profitable use of time for you?

>
> >>>>>> Yes, of course - by presumption, as I am rational economic actor.

>
> >>>>> What has it done for you?

>
> >>>> What do you care?

>
> >>> You've piqued my curiosity.

>
> >> Okay, then.


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

On 4/20/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:17 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 10:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 7:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > 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".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're
>>>>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this.

>>
>>>>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
>>>>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
>>>>>>>>> agency.

>>
>>>>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>>
>>>>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
>>>>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
>>>>>>>> you know it.

>>
>>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
>>>>> in every case.

>>
>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
>>>>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
>>>>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>>
>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
>>>>>>> universally so.

>>
>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral
>>>>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is
>>>>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement
>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>>
>>>>> Yes, all right.

>>
>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting
>>>> the wrong meaning.

>>
>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>>
>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
>> critics of amc say it would.

>
> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.


They're not. They're both spot-on correct.
  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/20/2012 12:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:25 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 10:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 7:32 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > 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".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're
>>>>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this.

>>
>>>>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
>>>>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
>>>>>>>>> agency.

>>
>>>>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>>
>>>>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
>>>>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
>>>>>>>> you know it.

>>
>>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
>>>>> in every case.

>>
>>>> In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral
>>>> agent.

>>
>>> Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child
>>> is one example.

>>
>> You stupid plodding ****: until you *know* the child is anencephalic,
>> you expect a human child to become a moral agent. You do *not* say,
>> "There is 'only' a 99.99% chance that that pregnant woman is going to
>> give birth to a baby with a normal brain, therefore I'm not going to be
>> 100% cautious in not causing her an injury that might result in the loss
>> of her child."
>>
>> When you hear that a woman is pregnant, you don't start thinking of
>> giving or withholding moral consideration to the baby she is likely to
>> bear based on your statistical estimate of whether or not it will be
>> born anencephalic, you stupid ****. You *EXPECT* it will be born with a
>> brain and will develop into a moral agent.
>>

>
> Yes, of course you do, because


Then you're done.


>> I'm getting tired of your blatant sophistry and raging intellectual
>> dishonesty.
>>

>
> You could always shut up and go away, then.


You could always stop bullshitting and trying to prop up a specious bit
of sophistry. Oh, wait...maybe you can't.


>>>> You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral
>>>> agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category
>>>> "human", and the subject in question is human.

>>
>>> That's an obvious fallacy.

>>
>> No, it is not, and you know it. It is a fact. You think "human = moral
>> agent"; you not think "human = 99.978% chance of being moral agent".
>>
>> Stop bullshitting. We're tired of it.
>>

>
> My remark was correct.


No, it was bullshit.


>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. It refers to before having the further information.

>>
>> Asshole. You were just time-wasting again.

>
> Your statement was a statement about certain a priori knowledge.


Not knowledge of the individual person, apart from the fact that he's human.
  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 20, 9:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:17 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 10:42 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 7:29 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * *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".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
> >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
> >>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this.

>
> >>>>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
> >>>>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
> >>>>>>>>> agency.

>
> >>>>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>
> >>>>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
> >>>>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
> >>>>>>>> you know it.

>
> >>>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
> >>>>> in every case.

>
> >>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
> >>>>>>>> * * * Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
> >>>>>>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>
> >>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
> >>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
> >>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
> >>>>>>> universally so.

>
> >>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral
> >>>>>> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is
> >>>>>> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
> >>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement
> >>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>
> >>>>> Yes, all right.

>
> >>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting
> >>>> the wrong meaning.

>
> >>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
> >>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>
> >> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
> >> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
> >> critics of amc say it would.

>
> > Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>
> They're not. *They're both spot-on correct.


So you apparently believe. But I have explained why the first one is
wrong and no argument is offered in favour of the second one.
  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message

>>
>>>> ...

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message

>>
>>>>>> ...

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> bats.

>>
>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>>>>>>>> "species"
>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> fruit
>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>>>>>> based
>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> species.

>>
>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>>
>>>> A lot.

>>
>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> in, then?
>
> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...s_Dec_05. pdf


Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
intellectual bankruptcy. You don't want hogs not to be raised in
"factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.


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

On 4/20/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:27 pm, George > wrote:



>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting
>>>>>>>>>>> exercise,

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. That's always you.

>>
>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation.

>>
>>>>>>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition.

>>
>>>>>>> I know.

>>
>>>>>> So does almost everyone.

>>
>>>>> No, only those

>>
>>>> Almost everyone. "ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people
>>>> have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to
>>>> morality.

>>
>>> Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most
>>> people have considered it, no.

>>
>> On some unspoken level, most have.

>
> I don't know what this is supposed to mean.


You know what it means. Stop bullshitting.


>> You are wrong.
>>
>> This is another example of your misplaced belief in your own
>> exceptionalism. You're just staggeringly egotistical and arrogant.

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

On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > wrote:


>>
>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
>>>>>>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
>>>>>>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>>
>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral
>>>>>>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is
>>>>>>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement
>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>>
>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>>
>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting
>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>>
>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>>
>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>>
>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>>
>> They're not. They're both spot-on correct.

>
> So you apparently believe.


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



"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...

>>
>> >> > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> ...

>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> >> ...

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

>>
>> >> >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats
>> >> >> >> one
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> some
>> >> >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> DNA
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> bats.

>>
>> >> >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>> >> >> > capacity
>> >> >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>> >> >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They
>> >> >> >> eat
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> lot
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>> >> >> >> about
>> >> >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>> >> >> >> "species"
>> >> >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>> >> >> >> species
>> >> >> >> .
>> >> >> >> We
>> >> >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> fruit
>> >> >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal
>> >> >> >> consideration,
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> give
>> >> >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>> >> >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>> >> >> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>> >> > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>> >> >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>> >> >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded
>> >> >> consideration
>> >> >> based
>> >> >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> species.

>>
>> >> > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>> >> > are entitled to, for example?

>>
>> >> A lot.

>>
>> > Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual
>> members
>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> in, then?
>
> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...s_Dec_05. pdf


Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal welfare, the
subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a sponge.




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

On Apr 20, 9:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > *wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
> >>>>>>>>>> * * * *Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
> >>>>>>>>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>
> >>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
> >>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
> >>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
> >>>>>>>>> universally so.

>
> >>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral
> >>>>>>>> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is
> >>>>>>>> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
> >>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement
> >>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>
> >>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>
> >>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting
> >>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>
> >>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
> >>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>
> >>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
> >>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
> >>>> critics of amc say it would.

>
> >>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>
> >> They're not. *They're both spot-on correct.

>
> > So you apparently believe.

>
> That was just more time-wasting.


What's the criterion for what is a waste of time? Apparently you're
not wasting your time by participating in this conversation because
you get some sort of benefit from it. So why conclude that I am
wasting my time? Do you not believe that I am a rational economic
actor?
  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 20, 9:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 12:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:25 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 10:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 7:32 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 9:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 6:17 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/20/2012 8:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 5:22 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 1:52 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:46 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 4:46 pm, George > * * * * * * *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".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. *If you say you don't, then you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
> >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
> >>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. *You know this.

>
> >>>>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
> >>>>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
> >>>>>>>>> agency.

>
> >>>>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>
> >>>>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
> >>>>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
> >>>>>>>> you know it.

>
> >>>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
> >>>>> in every case.

>
> >>>> In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral
> >>>> agent.

>
> >>> Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child
> >>> is one example.

>
> >> You stupid plodding ****: *until you *know* the child is anencephalic,
> >> you expect a human child to become a moral agent. *You do *not* say,
> >> "There is 'only' a 99.99% chance that that pregnant woman is going to
> >> give birth to a baby with a normal brain, therefore I'm not going to be
> >> 100% cautious in not causing her an injury that might result in the loss
> >> of her child."

>
> >> When you hear that a woman is pregnant, you don't start thinking of
> >> giving or withholding moral consideration to the baby she is likely to
> >> bear based on your statistical estimate of whether or not it will be
> >> born anencephalic, you stupid ****. *You *EXPECT* it will be born with a
> >> brain and will develop into a moral agent.

>
> > Yes, of course you do, because

>
> Then you're done.
>


Sounds like you're the one whose done.

> >> I'm getting tired of your blatant sophistry and raging intellectual
> >> dishonesty.

>
> > You could always shut up and go away, then.

>
> You could always stop bullshitting and trying to prop up a specious bit
> of sophistry. *Oh, wait...maybe you can't.
>
> >>>> You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral
> >>>> agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category
> >>>> "human", and the subject in question is human.

>
> >>> That's an obvious fallacy.

>
> >> No, it is not, and you know it. *It is a fact. *You think "human = moral
> >> agent"; you not think "human = 99.978% chance of being moral agent".

>
> >> Stop bullshitting. *We're tired of it.

>
> > My remark was correct.

>
> No, it was bullshit.
>


Wrong.

> >>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>> No, it doesn't. *It refers to before having the further information.



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

On Apr 20, 9:18*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > *wrote:
> >> > *wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > *wrote:
> >>>> > *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>>> > *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > *wrote

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > *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.

>
> >>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
> >>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> DNA
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> bats.

>
> >>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
> >>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >>>>>>> capacity
> >>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>
> >>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
> >>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >>>>>>>> "species"
> >>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >>>>>>>> species
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> fruit
> >>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>
> >>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
> >>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
> >>>>>> based
> >>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
> >>>>>> their
> >>>>>> species.

>
> >>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>
> >>>> A lot.

>
> >>> Okay, what about pigs?

>
> >> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> >> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
> >> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> >> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> >> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> > Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> > in, then?

>
> >http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>
> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?
>


I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,
and in any case it's irrelevant. I was providing a source of factual
information about how most pigs are treated in Australia, as a way of
further interrogating what sort of moral protections Dutch thinks pigs
are entitled to.

> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
> intellectual bankruptcy. *You don't want hogs not to be raised in
> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.
>
> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.


You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
kept in Australia. Examining how pigs are usually kept in Australia is
not evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. I simply want to learn more
about what kinds of treatment of pigs Dutch thinks are acceptable.
  #257 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 21, 9:41*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >> > On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> ...

>
> >> >> > On Apr 20, 8:42 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> ...

>
> >> >> >> > On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> >> ...

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

>
> >> >> >> >> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats
> >> >> >> >> one
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly
> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> some
> >> >> >> >> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is
> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> DNA
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> bats.

>
> >> >> >> > It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >> >> >> > capacity
> >> >> >> > was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>
> >> >> >> >> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They
> >> >> >> >> eat
> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> lot
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> >> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >> >> >> >> "species"
> >> >> >> >> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >> >> >> >> species
> >> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> >> We
> >> >> >> >> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> fruit
> >> >> >> >> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal
> >> >> >> >> consideration,
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> give
> >> >> >> >> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies..

>
> >> >> >> > Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based
> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> > the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >> >> >> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >> >> > I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >> >> >> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >> >> >> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded
> >> >> >> consideration
> >> >> >> based
> >> >> >> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> species.

>
> >> >> > Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >> >> > are entitled to, for example?

>
> >> >> A lot.

>
> >> > Okay, what about pigs?

>
> >> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> >> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual
> >> members
> >> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> >> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> >> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> > Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> > in, then?

>
> >http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>
> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal welfare, the
> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a sponge..


Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
learn all that much about what your views are.
  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 20, 9:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:27 pm, George > *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting
> >>>>>>>>>>> exercise,

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. *That's always you.

>
> >>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation.

>
> >>>>>>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition.

>
> >>>>>>> I know.

>
> >>>>>> So does almost everyone.

>
> >>>>> No, only those

>
> >>>> Almost everyone. *"ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people
> >>>> have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to
> >>>> morality.

>
> >>> Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most
> >>> people have considered it, no.

>
> >> On some unspoken level, most have.

>
> > I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

>
> You know what it means. *Stop bullshitting.
>


Most people are not aware of what animal rights philosophy is. They
have not considered it and rejected it, it's just not on their radar.
  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/21/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
>>>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
>>>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
>>>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral
>>>>>>>>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement
>>>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>>
>>>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting
>>>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>>
>>>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
>>>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>>
>>>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
>>>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
>>>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>>
>>>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>>
>>>> They're not. They're both spot-on correct.

>>
>>> So you apparently believe.

>>
>> That was just more time-wasting.

>
> What's the criterion for what is a waste of time?


In the context of this newsgroup, it's

a) nearly everything ****wit Harrison writes, and
b) *everything* you write

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

On 4/21/2012 1:02 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:13 pm, George > wrote:



>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe English is your native tongue, and by talking about having "the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be or to become a moral actor", I describe it in terms you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to understand. If you say you don't, then you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either retarded or a liar.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I can understand what that phrase would usually mean, but on that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation it would not be plausible that every human has the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor, as you claimed.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Ex ante/, knowing only that an entity is human, then it does have the
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to be a moral actor. You know this.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Ex ante" means "before the event"; I don't think you're applying that
>>>>>>>>>>> phrase correctly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's obviously not true that all humans have the potential for moral
>>>>>>>>>>> agency.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use /a priori/ if it makes you feel any better, you nitpicking ****.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> /A priori/, knowing only that an entity you are going to consider is a
>>>>>>>>>> living human, then it does have the potential to be a moral actor, and
>>>>>>>>>> you know it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>> It would have that potential in the great majority of cases, but not
>>>>>>> in every case.

>>
>>>>>> In *all* cases, you expect the human to be, or to develop to be, a moral
>>>>>> agent.

>>
>>>>> Wrong. In some cases you would not expect this. An anencephalic child
>>>>> is one example.

>>
>>>> You stupid plodding ****: until you *know* the child is anencephalic,
>>>> you expect a human child to become a moral agent. You do *not* say,
>>>> "There is 'only' a 99.99% chance that that pregnant woman is going to
>>>> give birth to a baby with a normal brain, therefore I'm not going to be
>>>> 100% cautious in not causing her an injury that might result in the loss
>>>> of her child."

>>
>>>> When you hear that a woman is pregnant, you don't start thinking of
>>>> giving or withholding moral consideration to the baby she is likely to
>>>> bear based on your statistical estimate of whether or not it will be
>>>> born anencephalic, you stupid ****. You *EXPECT* it will be born with a
>>>> brain and will develop into a moral agent.

>>
>>> Yes, of course you do, because

>>
>> Then you're done.
>>

>
> Sounds like you're the one whose done.


All except the victory celebration..


>>>> I'm getting tired of your blatant sophistry and raging intellectual
>>>> dishonesty.

>>
>>> You could always shut up and go away, then.

>>
>> You could always stop bullshitting and trying to prop up a specious bit
>> of sophistry. Oh, wait...maybe you can't.
>>
>>>>>> You don't expect it because "in most cases" humans are moral
>>>>>> agents; you think it because it is a defining trait of the category
>>>>>> "human", and the subject in question is human.

>>
>>>>> That's an obvious fallacy.

>>
>>>> No, it is not, and you know it. It is a fact. You think "human = moral
>>>> agent"; you not think "human = 99.978% chance of being moral agent".

>>
>>>> Stop bullshitting. We're tired of it.

>>
>>> My remark was correct.

>>
>> No, it was bullshit.
>>

>
> Wrong.


No, I'm right: your remark was bullshit.


>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. It refers to before having the further information.

>>
>>>> Asshole. You were just time-wasting again.

>>
>>> Your statement was a statement about certain a priori knowledge.

>>
>> Not knowledge of the individual person, apart from the fact that he's human.

>
> And from that you cannot infer with certainty that the individual has
> the potential to become a moral agent, only with high probability.


We *expect* it to happen, and it's considered a tragedy if it doesn't.
It is *qualitatively different* from an animal having the same capacity.
That's what gives it its moral difference.


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

On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message

>>
>>>> ...

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message

>>
>>>>>> ...

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>>>>>>>>>> "species"
>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>>>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> fruit
>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> species.

>>
>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>>
>>>>>> A lot.

>>
>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>>
>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
>>> in, then?

>>
>>> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>>
>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?
>>

>
> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,


You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. What does this
mean, Woopert:

We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
now to ensure their businesses remain viable.

They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
will remain viable." You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
cocksucking ****witted psychotic: they're trying to improve the welfare
of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.


>> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
>> intellectual bankruptcy. You don't want hogs not to be raised in
>> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.
>>
>> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>
> You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
> kept in Australia.


You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.
  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/21/2012 1:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:42 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 8:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you were the one who turned the conversation into a time-wasting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exercise,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. That's always you.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as without rational foundation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny - that's what I think about the entire "ar" proposition.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I know.

>>
>>>>>>>> So does almost everyone.

>>
>>>>>>> No, only those

>>
>>>>>> Almost everyone. "ar" believers are a tiny minority, and most people
>>>>>> have considered and rejected "ar" as a meaningful and useful guide to
>>>>>> morality.

>>
>>>>> Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. I don't believe that most
>>>>> people have considered it, no.

>>
>>>> On some unspoken level, most have.

>>
>>> I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

>>
>> You know what it means. Stop bullshitting.
>>

>
> Most people are not aware of what animal rights philosophy is.


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

On Apr 21, 5:36*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > * *wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
> >>>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
> >>>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral
> >>>>>>>>>> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is
> >>>>>>>>>> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
> >>>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement
> >>>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>
> >>>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting
> >>>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>
> >>>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
> >>>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>
> >>>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
> >>>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
> >>>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>
> >>>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>
> >>>> They're not. *They're both spot-on correct.

>
> >>> So you apparently believe.

>
> >> That was just more time-wasting.

>
> > What's the criterion for what is a waste of time?

>
> In the context of this newsgroup, it's
>
> * * a) nearly everything ****wit Harrison writes, and
> * * b) *everything* you write
>
> Hope that helps.


If only I try hard enough, then maybe I can get your level of insight
into the way the world is.
  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 21, 5:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>> > * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>> > * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > * *wrote

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > * *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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> DNA
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> bats.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
> >>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >>>>>>>>> capacity
> >>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme..

>
> >>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >>>>>>>>>> "species"
> >>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >>>>>>>>>> species
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> fruit
> >>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
> >>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
> >>>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> species.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>
> >>>>>> A lot.

>
> >>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>
> >>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> >>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
> >>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> >>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> >>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> >>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> >>> in, then?

>
> >>>http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro....

>
> >> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
> >> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>
> > I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>
> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. *What does this
> mean, Woopert:
>
> * * * We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
> * * * pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
> * * * suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
> * * * consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
> * * * now to ensure their businesses remain viable.
>
> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
> will remain viable." *You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: *they're trying to improve the welfare
> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.
>


They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.

I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?

> >> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
> >> intellectual bankruptcy. *You don't want hogs not to be raised in
> >> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

>
> >> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>
> > You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
> > kept in Australia.

>
> You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
> ****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
> humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.


That may or may not be their final long-term goal. What does it
matter?
  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/21/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:36 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral
>>>>>>>>>>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement
>>>>>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting
>>>>>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>>
>>>>>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
>>>>>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>>
>>>>>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
>>>>>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
>>>>>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>>
>>>>>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>>
>>>>>> They're not. They're both spot-on correct.

>>
>>>>> So you apparently believe.

>>
>>>> That was just more time-wasting.

>>
>>> What's the criterion for what is a waste of time?

>>
>> In the context of this newsgroup, it's
>>
>> a) nearly everything ****wit Harrison writes, and
>> b) *everything* you write
>>
>> Hope that helps.

>
> If only I try hard enough, then maybe


....then maybe you could stop wasting time. It's a sad commentary on the
emptiness of your life that you'd have to work at not wasting it.


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

On 4/21/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message

>>
>>>>>> ...

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>>>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>>>>>>>>>>>> "species"
>>>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fruit
>>>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>>>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>>>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> species.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>>>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>>
>>>>>>>> A lot.

>>
>>>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>>>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>>>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
>>>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>>>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>>>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>>
>>>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
>>>>> in, then?

>>
>>>>> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>>
>>>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
>>>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>>
>>> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>>
>> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. What does this
>> mean, Woopert:
>>
>> We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
>> pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
>> suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
>> consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
>> now to ensure their businesses remain viable.
>>
>> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
>> will remain viable." You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
>> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: they're trying to improve the welfare
>> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.
>>

>
> They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
> who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.


He at least has the sense not to try to impose his values on others by
force. You should consider that.


> I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?


Nice try. It matters - to you.


>>>> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
>>>> intellectual bankruptcy. You don't want hogs not to be raised in
>>>> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

>>
>>>> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>>
>>> You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
>>> kept in Australia.

>>
>> You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
>> ****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
>> humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.

>
> That may or may not be their final long-term goal. What does it
> matter?


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

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:


>> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal welfare,
>> the
>> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
>> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
>> sponge.

>
> Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
> moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
> learn all that much about what your views are.


I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at the
moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal consideration" (or
'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a misguided notion. We
give consideration unevenly to other creatures based on many objective and
subjective factors regarding them and us. Are you asking if we should? We
have to. We are animals ourselves, we don't exist in the sterile vacuum of
some theoretical debate on ethics, we are part of an organic soup.

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

On 4/21/2012 10:39 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>> On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
>>> welfare, the
>>> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
>>> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
>>> sponge.

>>
>> Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
>> moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
>> learn all that much about what your views are.

>
> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
> the moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal
> consideration" (or 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a
> misguided notion.


Good job on not letting Woopert steer the conversation off topic. It's
one of his regular tactics.


> We give consideration unevenly to other creatures
> based on many objective and subjective factors regarding them and us.
> Are you asking if we should? We have to. We are animals ourselves, we
> don't exist in the sterile vacuum of some theoretical debate on ethics,
> we are part of an organic soup.


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

On Apr 21, 6:56*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:36 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 9:45 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > * * *wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. *It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. *A human is *supposed* to be a moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>> agent. *It's what we *expect* to happen. *When it doesn't, something is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. *A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. *There is meaning to the statement
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. *Therefore, you're getting
> >>>>>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>
> >>>>>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
> >>>>>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>
> >>>>>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
> >>>>>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
> >>>>>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>
> >>>>>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>
> >>>>>> They're not. *They're both spot-on correct.

>
> >>>>> So you apparently believe.

>
> >>>> That was just more time-wasting.

>
> >>> What's the criterion for what is a waste of time?

>
> >> In the context of this newsgroup, it's

>
> >> * * *a) nearly everything ****wit Harrison writes, and
> >> * * *b) *everything* you write

>
> >> Hope that helps.

>
> > If only I try hard enough, then maybe

>
> ...then maybe you could stop wasting time. *It's a sad commentary on the
> emptiness of your life that you'd have to work at not wasting it.


I don't really understand what you mean by wasting time, Ball.
Apparently nothing you do here counts as wasting time because you are
a rational economic actor, but for some reason this doesn't apply to
the other participants in this newsgroup. Maybe one day I will have
your level of insight into what constitutes wasting time.
  #270 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 21, 6:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> > * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * *wrote

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > * * *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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DNA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
> >>>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >>>>>>>>>>> capacity
> >>>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "species"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> species
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fruit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
> >>>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >>>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
> >>>>>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
> >>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>> species.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >>>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>
> >>>>>>>> A lot.

>
> >>>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>
> >>>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> >>>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
> >>>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> >>>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> >>>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> >>>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> >>>>> in, then?

>
> >>>>>http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>
> >>>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
> >>>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>
> >>> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>
> >> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. *What does this
> >> mean, Woopert:

>
> >> * * * *We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
> >> * * * *pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
> >> * * * *suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
> >> * * * *consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
> >> * * * *now to ensure their businesses remain viable.

>
> >> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
> >> will remain viable." *You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
> >> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: *they're trying to improve the welfare
> >> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.

>
> > They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
> > who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.

>
> He at least has the sense not to try to impose his values on others by
> force. *You should consider that.
>


I've never attempted to impose my values on others by force.

> > I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?

>
> Nice try. *It matters - to you.
>


Why?

> >>>> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
> >>>> intellectual bankruptcy. *You don't want hogs not to be raised in
> >>>> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

>
> >>>> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>
> >>> You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
> >>> kept in Australia.

>
> >> You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
> >> ****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
> >> humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.

>
> > That may or may not be their final long-term goal. What does it
> > matter?

>
> It matters plenty.


Why?


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

On Apr 21, 7:39*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal welfare,
> >> the
> >> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
> >> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
> >> sponge.

>
> > Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
> > moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
> > learn all that much about what your views are.

>
> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at the
> moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal consideration" (or
> 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a misguided notion. We
> give consideration unevenly to other creatures based on many objective and
> subjective factors regarding them and us.


Which is perfectly consistent with non-speciesism.

> Are you asking if we should? We
> have to. We are animals ourselves, we don't exist in the sterile vacuum of
> some theoretical debate on ethics, we are part of an organic soup.


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

On Apr 21, 9:25*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 10:39 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote
> >> On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> >>> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
> >>> welfare, the
> >>> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
> >>> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
> >>> sponge.

>
> >> Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
> >> moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
> >> learn all that much about what your views are.

>
> > I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
> > the moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal
> > consideration" (or 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a
> > misguided notion.

>
> Good job on not letting Woopert steer the conversation off topic. *It's
> one of his regular tactics.
>


Dutch is claiming that other species are due less moral consideration.
I am trying to getting him to make this concrete by expounding his
views with regard to a specific example. It's not going off topic.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We give consideration unevenly to other creatures
> > based on many objective and subjective factors regarding them and us.
> > Are you asking if we should? We have to. We are animals ourselves, we
> > don't exist in the sterile vacuum of some theoretical debate on ethics,
> > we are part of an organic soup.


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

On 4/21/2012 12:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:56 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 5:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2012 1:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:13 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 9:11 pm, George > wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *expect* the human to be, or to develop to become, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral actor.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably would expect it in the absence of further information,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the **** do you think /a priori/ refers to, you stupid prick?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It refers to something you know for certain.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, something is wrong; the human has a defect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being human doesn't mean simply a pure Cambridge relation with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. It means something about the faculties a human ought to have.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are biological criteria for whether you are a member of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species Homo sapiens, those are the criteria. There are other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties that are typically associated with being human, but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universally so.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't refute what I said. A human is *supposed* to be a moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agent. It's what we *expect* to happen. When it doesn't, something is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. A human also is expected to have two legs and two arms, and when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't, something is wrong. There is meaning to the statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "humans are moral agents", and that meaning is in no way merely statistical.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, all right.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you're treating it as merely statistical. Therefore, you're getting
>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong meaning.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm doing is saying that individuals should be judged on those
>>>>>>>>>>> abilities which they in fact possess.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that's wrong, not least because you don't practice it, but also you
>>>>>>>>>> would therefore deny moral consideration to marginal humans, just as the
>>>>>>>>>> critics of amc say it would.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Both of those criticisms are incorrect.

>>
>>>>>>>> They're not. They're both spot-on correct.

>>
>>>>>>> So you apparently believe.

>>
>>>>>> That was just more time-wasting.

>>
>>>>> What's the criterion for what is a waste of time?

>>
>>>> In the context of this newsgroup, it's

>>
>>>> a) nearly everything ****wit Harrison writes, and
>>>> b) *everything* you write

>>
>>>> Hope that helps.

>>
>>> If only I try hard enough, then maybe

>>
>> ...then maybe you could stop wasting time. It's a sad commentary on the
>> emptiness of your life that you'd have to work at not wasting it.

>
> I don't really understand what you mean by wasting time


You wouldn't.
  #274 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/21/2012 12:48 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:25 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 10:39 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > wrote
>>>> On Apr 21, 9:41 am, > wrote:

>>
>>>>> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
>>>>> welfare, the
>>>>> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
>>>>> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
>>>>> sponge.

>>
>>>> Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
>>>> moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
>>>> learn all that much about what your views are.

>>
>>> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
>>> the moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal
>>> consideration" (or 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a
>>> misguided notion.

>>
>> Good job on not letting Woopert steer the conversation off topic. It's
>> one of his regular tactics.
>>

>
> Dutch is claiming that other species are due less moral consideration.
> I am trying to getting him to make this concrete by expounding his
> views with regard to a specific example. It's not going off topic.


Trying to get him to explain in detail the *degree* of consideration he
gives pigs, when the issue is the binary one of giving equal
consideration or not giving equal consideration to animals, is going off
topic.
  #275 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On 4/21/2012 12:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:57 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "species"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fruit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> species.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>>>>>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lot.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>>>>>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>>>>>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
>>>>>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>>>>>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>>>>>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>>
>>>>>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
>>>>>>> in, then?

>>
>>>>>>> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>>
>>>>>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
>>>>>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>>
>>>> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. What does this
>>>> mean, Woopert:

>>
>>>> We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
>>>> pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
>>>> suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
>>>> consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
>>>> now to ensure their businesses remain viable.

>>
>>>> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
>>>> will remain viable." You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
>>>> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: they're trying to improve the welfare
>>>> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.

>>
>>> They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
>>> who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.

>>
>> He at least has the sense not to try to impose his values on others by
>> force. You should consider that.
>>

>
> I've never attempted to impose my values on others by force.


You let others do the dirty work for you.


>
>>> I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?

>>
>> Nice try. It matters - to you.
>>

>
> Why?


How the **** would I know? I just know that it does - you wouldn't be
belaboring the point if it didn't matter to you.


>>>>>> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
>>>>>> intellectual bankruptcy. You don't want hogs not to be raised in
>>>>>> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

>>
>>>>>> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>>
>>>>> You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
>>>>> kept in Australia.

>>
>>>> You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
>>>> ****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
>>>> humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.

>>
>>> That may or may not be their final long-term goal. What does it
>>> matter?

>>
>> It matters plenty.

>
> Why?


See above.


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


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 21, 7:39 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
>> >> welfare,
>> >> the
>> >> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
>> >> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
>> >> sponge.

>>
>> > Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
>> > moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
>> > learn all that much about what your views are.

>>
>> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
>> the
>> moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal consideration"
>> (or
>> 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a misguided notion. We
>> give consideration unevenly to other creatures based on many objective
>> and
>> subjective factors regarding them and us.

>
> Which is perfectly consistent with non-speciesism.


As I have told you many times, "speciesism" is a misnomer, a strawman. I
demonstrated this recently with the example of the intelligent
extra-terrestrials. Species just tells us a lot about particular animals.

You're just unbelievably obtuse and stubborn.


>> Are you asking if we should? We
>> have to. We are animals ourselves, we don't exist in the sterile vacuum
>> of
>> some theoretical debate on ethics, we are part of an organic soup.

>
>

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

On Apr 22, 7:09*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 12:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:57 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > * * * *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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "species"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> species
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fruit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
> >>>>>>>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>> species.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
> >>>>>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> A lot.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>
> >>>>>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
> >>>>>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
> >>>>>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
> >>>>>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
> >>>>>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
> >>>>>>> in, then?

>
> >>>>>>>http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>
> >>>>>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
> >>>>>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>
> >>>>> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>
> >>>> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. *What does this
> >>>> mean, Woopert:

>
> >>>> * * * * We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
> >>>> * * * * pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
> >>>> * * * * suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
> >>>> * * * * consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
> >>>> * * * * now to ensure their businesses remain viable.

>
> >>>> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
> >>>> will remain viable." *You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
> >>>> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: *they're trying to improve the welfare
> >>>> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.

>
> >>> They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
> >>> who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.

>
> >> He at least has the sense not to try to impose his values on others by
> >> force. *You should consider that.

>
> > I've never attempted to impose my values on others by force.

>
> You let others do the dirty work for you.
>


No, no-one is attempting to impose my values on others by force.

>
>
> >>> I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?

>
> >> Nice try. *It matters - to you.

>
> > Why?

>
> How the **** would I know? *I just know that it does - you wouldn't be
> belaboring the point if it didn't matter to you.
>


It obviously matters to you for some reason that I cannot fathom.
There is no good reason to think that it matters to me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> This focus on "factory farms" is just one more instance of your
> >>>>>> intellectual bankruptcy. *You don't want hogs not to be raised in
> >>>>>> "factory farm" conditions - you want them not to be raised at all.

>
> >>>>>> You're dishonest - truly intellectually bankrupt.

>
> >>>>> You're an idiot. The paper is a study of how most pigs are in fact
> >>>>> kept in Australia.

>
> >>>> You're a stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant cocksucking
> >>>> ****witted psychotic - the organization wants hogs to be raised in more
> >>>> humane conditions, *not* eliminated altogether.

>
> >>> That may or may not be their final long-term goal. What does it
> >>> matter?

>
> >> It matters plenty.

>
> > Why?

>
> See above.


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

On Apr 22, 6:38*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/21/2012 12:48 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:25 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2012 10:39 AM, Dutch wrote:

>
> >>> > *wrote
> >>>> On Apr 21, 9:41 am, > *wrote:

>
> >>>>> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
> >>>>> welfare, the
> >>>>> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
> >>>>> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
> >>>>> sponge.

>
> >>>> Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
> >>>> moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
> >>>> learn all that much about what your views are.

>
> >>> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
> >>> the moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal
> >>> consideration" (or 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a
> >>> misguided notion.

>
> >> Good job on not letting Woopert steer the conversation off topic. *It's
> >> one of his regular tactics.

>
> > Dutch is claiming that other species are due less moral consideration.
> > I am trying to getting him to make this concrete by expounding his
> > views with regard to a specific example. It's not going off topic.

>
> Trying to get him to explain in detail the *degree* of consideration he
> gives pigs, when the issue is the binary one of giving equal
> consideration or not giving equal consideration to animals, is going off
> topic.


No, it's not; if he explains in detail how his views apply in one
particular case that will help me to understand his views better.
  #279 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

On Apr 22, 9:14*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:39 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > On Apr 21, 9:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> Let's not get too far off topic. We're not talking about animal
> >> >> welfare,
> >> >> the
> >> >> subject is "speciesism" and "equal consideration". I give greater
> >> >> consideration to a gorilla than a pig, and more to a pig than to a
> >> >> sponge.

>
> >> > Unfortunately you don't seem willing to specify in detail what kind of
> >> > moral consideration you give to a pig, so I suppose I'm never going to
> >> > learn all that much about what your views are.

>
> >> I'm willing to discuss the treatment of pigs, its just not on point at
> >> the
> >> moment. My view on the current discussion is that "equal consideration"
> >> (or
> >> 'non-speciesism') is at the very least a misnomer, a misguided notion. We
> >> give consideration unevenly to other creatures based on many objective
> >> and
> >> subjective factors regarding them and us.

>
> > Which is perfectly consistent with non-speciesism.

>
> As I have told you many times, "speciesism" is a misnomer, a strawman. I
> demonstrated this recently with the example of the intelligent
> extra-terrestrials. Species just tells us a lot about particular animals.
>
> You're just unbelievably obtuse and stubborn.
>


Okay, so you agree with me that speciesism should be rejected, which
is great. So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should be
rejected."

And then I wanted to tease out your views further by getting you to
spell out the details of your views about pigs, but you refused to do
so.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Are you asking if we should? We
> >> have to. We are animals ourselves, we don't exist in the sterile vacuum
> >> of
> >> some theoretical debate on ethics, we are part of an organic soup.


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

On 4/22/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:09 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 12:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 6:57 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 9:18 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 12:08 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 7:23 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 8:42 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 12:07 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 10:13 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 11:57 pm, > 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I mean by inherent capacity. When we think of bats one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first things we think of is their sonar. Some bats undoubtedly for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason don't have it, or it never develops properly, but it is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bats.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is in the DNA of bats in general, yes, if you were looking at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual bat who lacked the ability then whether or not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was still "in the DNA" would be a scientific research programme.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's not the whole story of bats, they are also a *mammal that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fly*, that's another amazing inherent quality of the bat. They eat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs too. So when we refer to "bats" we mean everything we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bats". We know a lot of other stuff about bats, That's what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "species"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates, the accumulation of all the inherent capacities of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate to bats based on that, we do it for for worms and sponges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fruit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flies, gorillas and humans. We don't give them equal consideration,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them consideration based on their "kind" and all that implies.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option is to give each individual bat consideration based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abilities they actually possess.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give them all IQ tests?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any good reason why that would be necessary.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The upper limit of their abilities is known and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the only one that matters. Species are afforded consideration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the upper limit of abilities of the most advanced known member of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, what sort of moral consideration do you believe that gorillas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are entitled to, for example?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A lot.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, what about pigs?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every animal should be afforded consideration based in large part on
>>>>>>>>>> species, which tells us everything we need to know about individual members
>>>>>>>>>> of that species. That is "speciesism", a healthy and rational form of
>>>>>>>>>> discrimination. Pigs are pretty intelligent, sensitive creatures and
>>>>>>>>>> therefore ought to be given consideration based on that.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, what do you think of the conditions most farmed pigs are kept
>>>>>>>>> in, then?

>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.voiceless.org.au/sites/de...ss_Report,_Fro...

>>
>>>>>>>> Why are you citing a source that accepts that hog farming /per se/ is
>>>>>>>> morally acceptable, when you believe it isn't?

>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any reason to think that is what Voiceless believes,

>>
>>>>>> You are just ****ing stupid - *****ING* stupid, Woopert. What does this
>>>>>> mean, Woopert:

>>
>>>>>> We hope this report encourages consumers to reject factory farmed
>>>>>> pigmeat and politicians to introduce new laws to reduce the
>>>>>> suffering of pigs.We also hope that farmers recognise that a
>>>>>> consumer revolution is on its way and that changes should be made
>>>>>> now to ensure their businesses remain viable.

>>
>>>>>> They want hog farmers to make changes "...now to ensure their businesses
>>>>>> will remain viable." You stupid plodding smug self-satisfied arrogant
>>>>>> cocksucking ****witted psychotic: they're trying to improve the welfare
>>>>>> of hogs that *are* raised, not put hog farmers out of business.

>>
>>>>> They might be incrementalists. In any event, Brian Sherman, the guy
>>>>> who runs Voiceless, is a vegan.

>>
>>>> He at least has the sense not to try to impose his values on others by
>>>> force. You should consider that.

>>
>>> I've never attempted to impose my values on others by force.

>>
>> You let others do the dirty work for you.
>>

>
> No, no-one is attempting to impose my values on others by force.


False.


>>
>>>>> I don't really care, anyway. What does it matter?

>>
>>>> Nice try. It matters - to you.

>>
>>> Why?

>>
>> How the **** would I know? I just know that it does - you wouldn't be
>> belaboring the point if it didn't matter to you.
>>

>
> It obviously matters to you for some reason that I cannot fathom.


It matters to you, too.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"