On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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

It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
do with the principle of species-specific consideration.

You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.

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

You don't think it should be rejected, you think that this specious concept
should be embraced and exploited to advance your misguided agenda. We view
humans differently because humans *are* different. The marginal cases
fallacy is bullshit.

If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who could
not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose so,
technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word that
denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals that
doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other words
that describe unjustified discrimination.

> So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
> Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should be
> rejected."

So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing but
shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.

Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a specious
concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about the
treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this topic.

On Apr 22, 6:26*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

So who are you referring to here?

>
>
> >>>>> 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.

You often think you know things when you don't.

On Apr 22, 6:26*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > *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
>
> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.

Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
"invalid debate tactic"?

On Apr 22, 8:34*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You don't think it should be rejected, you think that this specious concept
> should be embraced and exploited to advance your misguided agenda. We view
> humans differently because humans *are* different. The marginal cases
> fallacy is bullshit.
>

Why?

> If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who could
> not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose so,
> technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word that
> denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals that
> doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other words
> that describe unjustified discrimination.
>
> > So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
> > Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should be
> > rejected."
>
> So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing but
> shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.
>
> Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a specious
> concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about the
> treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this topic.

Perhaps you could help me get clearer about your views. Do you agree
that there is a distinction between speciesist and non-speciesist
ethical theories? Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
to be rejected? If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
with you."

On 4/23/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> So who are you referring to here?

"aras" [also, it should be "to whom are you referring?"]


>>>>>>> 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.
>
> You often think you know things when you don't.

I do know them.

On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> "invalid debate tactic"?

It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
to the topic.

On Apr 23, 5:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > So who are you referring to here?
>
> "aras" [also, it should be "to whom are you referring?"]
>

ARAs in general are not attempting to impose any values on others by
force. Gary Francione, for example, does not advocate the use of force
to achieve AR goals, and there are many others like him, probably the
majority. There are some that use force but I do not endorse their
actions.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>
> > You often think you know things when you don't.
>
> I do know them.

On Apr 23, 5:11*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * *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
>
> >> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
> >> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> >> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> > Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> > "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. *How much
> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
> to the topic.

It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
has not refuted the AMC.

On 4/23/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:09 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> So who are you referring to here?
>>
>> "aras" [also, it should be "to whom are you referring?"]
>>
>
> ARAs in general are not attempting to impose any values on others by
> force. Gary Francione, for example, does not advocate the use of force
> to achieve AR goals,

He and most "aras" never condemn those who use or advocate the use of
force. By remaining silent, they're agreeing with it.

On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>
>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>
>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>> to the topic.
>
> It is asking him to clarify his views.

It's a time-wasting attempt at evasion. It's one of your standard tactics.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 22, 8:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You don't think it should be rejected, you think that this specious
>> concept
>> should be embraced and exploited to advance your misguided agenda. We
>> view
>> humans differently because humans *are* different. The marginal cases
>> fallacy is bullshit.
>>
>
> Why?

I've told you a dozen times, "capacities", not "abilities". An eagle is
still an eagle even if he has a broken wing.


>> If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who could
>> not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose so,
>> technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word
>> that
>> denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals
>> that
>> doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other words
>> that describe unjustified discrimination.
>>
>> > So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
>> > Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should be
>> > rejected."
>>
>> So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing but
>> shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.
>>
>> Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a specious
>> concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about the
>> treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this
>> topic.
>
> Perhaps you could help me get clearer about your views.

I doubt it, you are too stubborn and obtuse.

> Do you agree
> that there is a distinction between speciesist and non-speciesist
> ethical theories?

"Specieisism" is a specious notion, it doesn't involve a valid ethical
principle.

> Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
> to be rejected?

Yes, for the reason I just stated, along with "non-speciesism", the entire
concept should be and largely is seen as nonsense.

> If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
> about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
> with you."

I could not disagree with you any more vehemently. The term "speciesism" is
a not-very-clever sophism. Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous to
racism and sexism, but they are wrong. Racism and sexism are forms of
discrimination based on the assumption that certain fundamental differences
exist between the races or the genders when in fact they do not, the
differences are false, trumped up. The differences between species are real,
and we are correct to factor those differences in our attitude towards
various species. You do it, we all do it. Discrimination based on real
differences is sanity. Would you let your 4 year old drive your car for fear
of being labeled "ageist"?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>> >> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>> >> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing
>> >> to
>> >> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>> >> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>
>> > Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>> > "invalid debate tactic"?
>>
>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>> to the topic.
>
> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> has not refuted the AMC.

I have.

On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>
>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>
>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>> to the topic.
>
> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> has not refuted the AMC.

The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument is
in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
and so has never refuted.

Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary
developments of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at
helping to regulate human interactions. Some degree of moral
consideration of interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be
extended to animals, but there is no reason for it to be fully equal
moral consideration, because doing so does not advance our own survival.

"George Plimpton" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>>
>>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing
>>>>> to
>>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>>
>>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>>
>>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>>
>>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>>> to the topic.
>>
>> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
>> has not refuted the AMC.
>
> The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument is
> in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
> and so has never refuted.
>
> Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary developments
> of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at helping to
> regulate human interactions. Some degree of moral consideration of
> interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be extended to animals, but
> there is no reason for it to be fully equal moral consideration, because
> doing so does not advance our own survival.

The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
"animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart because
no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include all
animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet, etc...)
so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only, and
as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the ARA
says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the attributes of
certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that is
exactly what we are doing too.

And as you said previously, everyone's consideration exists on a continuum
that is a blend of objective and subjective factors. I once spent $1500 to
have a cancer operation on an 18 year old cat of mine, money that could have
been spent on feeding some hungry children somewhere, even in my own
community. So when you consider the AMC, the few humans with such severely
diminished capacities that they are no more sentient than a cat for example
are viewed based on a mixture of these kind of subjective considerations,
including but not limited to what might be called "species loyalty".

On Apr 23, 7:37*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:09 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>> So who are you referring to here?
>
> >> "aras" [also, it should be "to whom are you referring?"]
>
> > ARAs in general are not attempting to impose any values on others by
> > force. Gary Francione, for example, does not advocate the use of force
> > to achieve AR goals,
>
> He and most "aras" never condemn those who use or advocate the use of
> force. *By remaining silent, they're agreeing with it.

No. He condemns the use of force.

On Apr 23, 7:37*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * * *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
>
> >>>> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
> >>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> >>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> >>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> >>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> >> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> >> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> >> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. *How much
> >> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
> >> to the topic.
>
> > It is asking him to clarify his views.
>
> It's a time-wasting attempt at evasion. *It's one of your standard tactics.

You're a fool.

On Apr 23, 8:09*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> >> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * *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
>
> >> >> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing
> >> >> to
> >> >> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> >> >> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> >> > Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> >> > "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> >> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> >> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> >> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. *How much
> >> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
> >> to the topic.
>
> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> > has not refuted the AMC.
>
> I have.

What's the refutation?

On 4/23/2012 12:14 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>>>
>>>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has
>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>>>
>>>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>>>
>>>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>>>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>>>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>>>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>>>> to the topic.
>>>
>>> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
>>> has not refuted the AMC.
>>
>> The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument
>> is in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly
>> understood and so has never refuted.
>>
>> Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary
>> developments of humans, and they evolved because they are successful
>> at helping to regulate human interactions. Some degree of moral
>> consideration of interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be
>> extended to animals, but there is no reason for it to be fully equal
>> moral consideration, because doing so does not advance our own survival.
>
> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart
> because no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly*
> include all animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the
> carpet, etc...) so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain
> animals only, and as soon as you do that you are engaging in
> "speciesism". And if the ARA says, no I am not selecting by species, I
> am selecting by the attributes of certain species, such as sentience or
> intelligence, the response, that is exactly what we are doing too.

Yep. It may not be normal for a flea to exhibit the capacity for
suffering that a pig has, but "aras" need to allow for it, and therefore
they ought to show equal consideration of the interests of pigs and
fleas. But they don't.


>
> And as you said previously, everyone's consideration exists on a
> continuum that is a blend of objective and subjective factors. I once
> spent $1500 to have a cancer operation on an 18 year old cat of mine,
> money that could have been spent on feeding some hungry children
> somewhere, even in my own community. So when you consider the AMC, the
> few humans with such severely diminished capacities that they are no
> more sentient than a cat for example are viewed based on a mixture of
> these kind of subjective considerations, including but not limited to
> what might be called "species loyalty".
>
>
>
>

On 4/23/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:37 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>>>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
>>>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>>>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>
>>>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>
>>>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>>>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>>>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>>>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>>>> to the topic.
>>
>>> It is asking him to clarify his views.
>>
>> It's a time-wasting attempt at evasion. It's one of your standard tactics.
>
> You're a fool.

That's not a refutation.

On Apr 23, 8:22*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * * *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
>
> >>>> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
> >>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> >>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> >>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> >>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> >> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> >> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> >> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. *How much
> >> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
> >> to the topic.
>
> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> > has not refuted the AMC.
>
> The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument is
> in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
> and so has never refuted.
>

I directed you towards a critical discussion of the ASN. You have not
provided a satisfactory response.

> Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary
> developments of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at
> helping to regulate human interactions.

In what sense?

> Some degree of moral
> consideration of interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be
> extended to animals, but there is no reason for it to be fully equal
> moral consideration, because doing so does not advance our own survival.

On 4/23/2012 1:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:37 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 5:09 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> So who are you referring to here?
>>
>>>> "aras" [also, it should be "to whom are you referring?"]
>>
>>> ARAs in general are not attempting to impose any values on others by
>>> force. Gary Francione, for example, does not advocate the use of force
>>> to achieve AR goals,
>>
>> He and most "aras" never condemn those who use or advocate the use of
>> force. By remaining silent, they're agreeing with it.
>
> No. He condemns the use of force.

Bullshit.

On Apr 23, 9:14*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * * *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
>
> >>>>> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>
> >>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> >>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> >>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> >>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> >>> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> >>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. *How much
> >>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
> >>> to the topic.
>
> >> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> >> has not refuted the AMC.
>
> > The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument is
> > in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
> > and so has never refuted.
>
> > Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary developments
> > of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at helping to
> > regulate human interactions. *Some degree of moral consideration of
> > interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be extended to animals, but
> > there is no reason for it to be fully equal moral consideration, because
> > doing so does not advance our own survival.
>
> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart because
> no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include all
> animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet, etc...)
> so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only, and
> as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the ARA
> says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the attributes of
> certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that is
> exactly what we are doing too.
>

But you refuse to spell out the details of your views, such as for
example what it entails about how pigs should be treated. And you have
provided no satisfactory response to the AMC.

> And as you said previously, everyone's consideration exists on a continuum
> that is a blend of objective and subjective factors. I once spent $1500 to
> have a cancer operation on an 18 year old cat of mine, money that could have
> been spent on feeding some hungry children somewhere, even in my own
> community. So when you consider the AMC, the few humans with such severely
> diminished capacities that they are no more sentient than a cat for example
> are viewed based on a mixture of these kind of subjective considerations,
> including but not limited to what might be called "species loyalty".

On Apr 23, 8:08*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 8:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> You don't think it should be rejected, you think that this specious
> >> concept
> >> should be embraced and exploited to advance your misguided agenda. We
> >> view
> >> humans differently because humans *are* different. The marginal cases
> >> fallacy is bullshit.
>
> > Why?
>
> I've told you a dozen times, "capacities", not "abilities". An eagle is
> still an eagle even if he has a broken wing.
>

There is no meaningful notion of "capacities" available on which all
humans have the same capacities.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who could
> >> not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose so,
> >> technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word
> >> that
> >> denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals
> >> that
> >> doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other words
> >> that describe unjustified discrimination.
>
> >> > So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
> >> > Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should be
> >> > rejected."
>
> >> So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing but
> >> shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.
>
> >> Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a specious
> >> concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about the
> >> treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this
> >> topic.
>
> > Perhaps you could help me get clearer about your views.
>
> I doubt it, you are too stubborn and obtuse.
>
> > Do you agree
> > that there is a distinction between speciesist and non-speciesist
> > ethical theories?
>
> "Specieisism" is a specious notion, it doesn't involve a valid ethical
> principle.
>

What I want to know is if you think it's a meaningful distinction or
not.

> > Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
> > to be rejected?
>
> Yes, for the reason I just stated, along with "non-speciesism", the entire
> concept should be and largely is seen as nonsense.
>
> > If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
> > about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
> > with you."
>
> I could not disagree with you any more vehemently. The term "speciesism" is
> a not-very-clever sophism. Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous to
> racism and sexism, but they are wrong. Racism and sexism are forms of
> discrimination based on the assumption that certain fundamental differences
> exist between the races or the genders when in fact they do not, the
> differences are false, trumped up. The differences between species are real,
> and we are correct to factor those differences in our attitude towards
> various species. You do it, we all do it. Discrimination based on real
> differences is sanity. Would you let your 4 year old drive your car for fear
> of being labeled "ageist"?

I'm unclear on what our point of disagreement is. Saying that an
ethical theory should be non-speciesist is not saying that you are not
allowed to discriminate on the basis of cognitive capacities. It is
saying that the argument from species normality should be rejected.
You are not making it very clear whether you agree with the latter
point.

On 4/23/2012 1:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:22 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > 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
>>
>>>>>> It is. The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
>>>>>> do with the principle of species-specific consideration.
>>
>>>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>>
>>>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
>>>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>>
>>>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
>>>> views. His contention is that a different level of consideration for
>>>> animals on a species by species basis is morally permissible. How much
>>>> consideration he gives to members of a particular species is irrelevant
>>>> to the topic.
>>
>>> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
>>> has not refuted the AMC.
>>
>> The AMC was never really an argument, and what little bit of argument is
>> in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
>> and so has never refuted.
>>
>
> I directed you towards a critical discussion of the ASN. You have not
> provided a satisfactory response.

I did. You and all the other "ar" extremists don't get ASN.


>> Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary
>> developments of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at
>> helping to regulate human interactions.
>
> In what sense?

You continue to exhibit problems with basic English language.


>> Some degree of moral
>> consideration of interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be
>> extended to animals, but there is no reason for it to be fully equal
>> moral consideration, because doing so does not advance our own survival.
>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition

It means lives that are good.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>> >> >> >> >nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>> >> >> >> >why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
>> >> >> >> >all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
>> >> >> >> >interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>> >> >> >> >no regard for the interests of other species.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>> >> >> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>> >> >> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>> >> >> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>> >> >> >> . . .
>>
>> >> >> >> >The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
>> >> >> >> >of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
>> >> >> >> >interests of members of our own species.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>> >> >> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>> >> >> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>>
>> >> >> >That does not follow.
>>
>> >> >> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
>> >> >> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
>> >> >> everything...?
>>
>> >> >Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
>> >> >of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>>
>> >> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
>> >> be proud that it IS that way?
>>
>> >It doesn't.
>>
>> * * Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
>> it means?
>
>It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
>should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
>considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
>belong.
>
>The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
>fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant

So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being
speciesist. Worse actually, imo.

On 4/23/2012 2:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>
> It means lives

Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 23, 8:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
>> > has not refuted the AMC.
>>
>> I have.
>
> What's the refutation?

moralstat99

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 23, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
>> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart
>> because
>> no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include all
>> animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet,
>> etc...)
>> so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only,
>> and
>> as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the ARA
>> says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the attributes
>> of
>> certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that is
>> exactly what we are doing too.
>>
>
> But you refuse to spell out the details of your views, such as for
> example what it entails about how pigs should be treated.

The details are beside the point, bigger and better pens, no tail docking,
more light, soothing music, whatever is shown to make them content, etc. The
point is that I believe that they deserve a lot more consideration than
fleas, and so do you, therefore both of us are "speciesist". I just don't
have the same set of speciesist attitudes about the same species that you
do. It would be folly to not use the information that an animal's species
conveys to inform our ways of relating to them.

> And you have
> provided no satisfactory response to the AMC.

moralstat99

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 23, 8:08 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> >> The marginal cases
>> >> fallacy is bullshit.
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> I've told you a dozen times, "capacities", not "abilities". An eagle is
>> still an eagle even if he has a broken wing.
>>
>
> There is no meaningful notion of "capacities" available on which all
> humans have the same capacities.

Capacities are inherent to species. Individuals may exhibit them to
different degrees, they may even go undeveloped but human capacities inhere
in human dna.

>> >> If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who
>> >> could
>> >> not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose
>> >> so,
>> >> technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word
>> >> that
>> >> denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals
>> >> that
>> >> doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other
>> >> words
>> >> that describe unjustified discrimination.
>>
>> >> > So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
>> >> > Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should
>> >> > be
>> >> > rejected."
>>
>> >> So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing
>> >> but
>> >> shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.
>>
>> >> Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a
>> >> specious
>> >> concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about
>> >> the
>> >> treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this
>> >> topic.
>>
>> > Perhaps you could help me get clearer about your views.
>>
>> I doubt it, you are too stubborn and obtuse.
>>
>> > Do you agree
>> > that there is a distinction between speciesist and non-speciesist
>> > ethical theories?
>>
>> "Specieisism" is a specious notion, it doesn't involve a valid ethical
>> principle.
>>
>
> What I want to know is if you think it's a meaningful distinction or
> not.

It is an indicator of a constellation of capacities and abilities, in that
respect it is significant. The fact that different animal species have
unique dna signatures that denote their species membership is not in itself
nearly as significant, note my friendly alien example, it would be as
non-human as possible.


>
>> > Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
>> > to be rejected?
>>
>> Yes, for the reason I just stated, along with "non-speciesism", the
>> entire
>> concept should be and largely is seen as nonsense.
>>
>> > If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
>> > about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
>> > with you."
>>
>> I could not disagree with you any more vehemently. The term "speciesism"
>> is
>> a not-very-clever sophism. Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous
>> to
>> racism and sexism, but they are wrong. Racism and sexism are forms of
>> discrimination based on the assumption that certain fundamental
>> differences
>> exist between the races or the genders when in fact they do not, the
>> differences are false, trumped up. The differences between species are
>> real,
>> and we are correct to factor those differences in our attitude towards
>> various species. You do it, we all do it. Discrimination based on real
>> differences is sanity. Would you let your 4 year old drive your car for
>> fear
>> of being labeled "ageist"?
>
> I'm unclear on what our point of disagreement is.

Go through the previous paragraph sentence by sentence and go "agree" or
"disagree", yes, or no, then you'll know.

Saying that an
> ethical theory should be non-speciesist is not saying that you are not
> allowed to discriminate on the basis of cognitive capacities.

Cognitive capacities are species dependent. There is a certain range for
each species, and there are impairments and dysfunctions, but species
membership gives us 99% of the relevant information. The other part of
consideration is subjective, related to familial ties, or other personal
considerations.

It is
> saying that the argument from species normality should be rejected.
> You are not making it very clear whether you agree with the latter
> point.

Do you have a good link that states the ASN so I can look it over?

On Apr 24, 7:09*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> >> > has not refuted the AMC.
>
> >> I have.
>
> > What's the refutation?
>
> moralstat99

How would you define "capabilities"?

On Apr 24, 7:18*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
> >> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart
> >> because
> >> no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include all
> >> animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet,
> >> etc...)
> >> so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only,
> >> and
> >> as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the ARA
> >> says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the attributes
> >> of
> >> certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that is
> >> exactly what we are doing too.
>
> > But you refuse to spell out the details of your views, such as for
> > example what it entails about how pigs should be treated.
>
> The details are beside the point, bigger and better pens, no tail docking,
> more light, soothing music, whatever is shown to make them content, etc. The
> point is that I believe that they deserve a lot more consideration than
> fleas, and so do you, therefore both of us are "speciesist". I just don't
> have the same set of speciesist attitudes about the same species that you
> do. It would be folly to not use the information that an animal's species
> conveys to inform our ways of relating to them.
>

As far as the comparison with fleas go, fleas have a completely
different set of interests, so you haven't really shown that I'm
failing to follow the principle of equal consideration of interests.
That is not what I mean by speciesism.

> > And you have
> > provided no satisfactory response to the AMC.
>
> moralstat99

On Apr 23, 10:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 1:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:22 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 23, 5:11 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/23/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/22/2012 1:34 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 22, 6:38 am, George > * * * *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 otherspeciesare 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
>
> >>>>>> It is. *The particular weight he gives to pigs' interests has nothing to
> >>>>>> do with the principle ofspecies-specific consideration.
>
> >>>>>> You're engaging in your usual invalid debate tactics.
>
> >>>>> Why is asking someone a question to get them to clarify their views an
> >>>>> "invalid debate tactic"?
>
> >>>> It's a time-wasting evasion that is *not* asking him to clarify his
> >>>> views. *His contention is that a different level of consideration for
> >>>> animals on aspeciesbyspeciesbasis is morally permissible. *How much
> >>>> consideration he gives to members of a particularspeciesis irrelevant
> >>>> to the topic.
>
> >>> It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> >>> has not refuted the AMC.
>
> >> The AMC was never really anargument, and what little bit ofargumentis
> >> in it is refuted by the ASN, which no "ara" has ever properly understood
> >> and so has never refuted.
>
> > I directed you towards a critical discussion of the ASN. You have not
> > provided a satisfactory response.
>
> I did. *You and all the other "ar" extremists don't get ASN.
>

What you said is "They don't get it". This is not a satisfactory
response. If you think they've gone astray in their interpretation of
the argument then you need to show where.

> >> Rights and moral consideration of interests are evolutionary
> >> developments of humans, and they evolved because they are successful at
> >> helping to regulate human interactions.
>
> > In what sense?
>
> You continue to exhibit problems with basic English language.
>

It's not a problem with the English language. "Successful" implies
some pre-existing goal. You need to explain what kinds of regulation
of human interaction you consider desirable and why, and then you need
to show that this really was the reason why rights evolved in the way
that they have.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Some degree of moral
> >> consideration of interests of animals - but *not* rights - can be
> >> extended to animals, but there is no reason for it to be fully equal
> >> moral consideration, because doing so does not advance our own survival.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 24, 7:09 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 8:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
>> >> > has not refuted the AMC.
>>
>> >> I have.
>>
>> > What's the refutation?
>>
>> moralstat99
>
> How would you define "capabilities"?

From moralstat99
-----------------------------------------------
A rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases
It may well be that Warren's proposal at this point is more adequate in
relation to common sense than the positions of Regan or Singer.
Nevertheless, it appears that all three of them have based their
arguments on the assumption that the concepts of a moral person and a
moral agent are synonymous or equivalent. This assumption can be
contested, and if it is rejected, it seems that their arguments will not
work.
An alternative to their assumption has been developed by Jens Saugstad
in his doctoral thesis on The Moral Ontology of Human Fetuses; A
Metaphysical Investigation of Personhood (1994). On Saugstad's
interpretation, Kant's concept of a moral person is generic in relation
to that of a moral agent. This implies that the class of moral agents is
a subclass of moral persons; some moral persons are moral agents, others
are not.
On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two
kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral
agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or
her actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the
capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also
the operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice.
However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without
having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral
person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded
on the actual capability and not on the potential ability.
Two consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it
extends moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and
necessary condition for this extension is the presence of the capability
of moral agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the
operative ability is also present. On this ground equal inherent value
and equal basic rights can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human
beings.
Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not
equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as
in normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages
of pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents,
but they have it potentially and it will be actualised in due time.
Still they may be assumed to have the capability as an actual internal
property, and this is the ground for considering them to be persons. It
may be asked whether this argument justifies the assumption about equal
moral status value. Would it not be possible to introduce grading on the
basis of how far the potentiality for moral agency has developed? This
view has been propounded in discussions about abortion. On the basis of
the present argument, however, it must be rejected, since moral status
value is assumed to be grounded on capabilities of agency, which are
actual, and not on potential abilities.
In other cases there are humans who have been moral agents, but have
lost the required abilities. This pertains to many cases of the severely
brain damaged and the severely senile. If we assume that they have
retained their capabilities of being moral agents, we still have a
sufficient reason for ascribing equal inherent value to them. Against
this it may be objected that they may have lost not only their ability
of being moral agents, but also their capability. There is room for much
empirical doubt about these borderline cases, and for that reason there
is also room for giving them the benefit of doubt. Admittedly, this is a
somewhat ad hoc assumption. Even if it is not a good scientific
explanation, however, it may be a good moral reason.
This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases of
marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents and
will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded.
Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability is still
there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an equal
moral status value to them. If this justification is not accepted,
however, it does not necessarily follow that they have no moral status
value at all. They may have a gradual moral status value, depending on
the argument which we shall discuss below. As for those who are borne
without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to
all moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and
egalitarian. If this way of understanding the relation between moral
persons and moral agents works, there will be no need to distinguish
Agent's Rights and Human Rights the way Warren does. They will be
grounded in the same internal property of moral persons, and there will
be no need for a supplementary justification based on an external
relation such as membership in a human society.
The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
moral status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its
absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying
moral status to them. In this way Kant's anthropocentrism is vindicated,
albeit with the proviso mentioned earlier that this rests on the
contingent fact that only humans are moral persons. Theoretically, there
might be other moral persons also, but there seem to be none, excepting
perhaps some of our closest relatives among the primates.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 24, 7:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
>> >> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart
>> >> because
>> >> no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include
>> >> all
>> >> animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet,
>> >> etc...)
>> >> so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only,
>> >> and
>> >> as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the
>> >> ARA
>> >> says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the
>> >> attributes
>> >> of
>> >> certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that
>> >> is
>> >> exactly what we are doing too.
>>
>> > But you refuse to spell out the details of your views, such as for
>> > example what it entails about how pigs should be treated.
>>
>> The details are beside the point, bigger and better pens, no tail
>> docking,
>> more light, soothing music, whatever is shown to make them content, etc.
>> The
>> point is that I believe that they deserve a lot more consideration than
>> fleas, and so do you, therefore both of us are "speciesist". I just don't
>> have the same set of speciesist attitudes about the same species that you
>> do. It would be folly to not use the information that an animal's species
>> conveys to inform our ways of relating to them.
>>
>
> As far as the comparison with fleas go, fleas have a completely
> different set of interests, so you haven't really shown that I'm
> failing to follow the principle of equal consideration of interests.
> That is not what I mean by speciesism.

Don't fleas have an interest in survival?

>
>> > And you have
>> > provided no satisfactory response to the AMC.
>>
>> moralstat99
>

On Apr 24, 7:54*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote> On Apr 23, 8:08 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> The marginal cases
> >> >> fallacy is bullshit.
>
> >> > Why?
>
> >> I've told you a dozen times, "capacities", not "abilities". An eagle is
> >> still an eagle even if he has a broken wing.
>
> > There is no meaningful notion of "capacities" available on which all
> > humans have the same capacities.
>
> Capacities are inherent tospecies. Individuals may exhibit them to
> different degrees, they may even go undeveloped but human capacities inhere
> in human dna.
>

I have been having a look at Wetlesen's article again and I find it
unlikely that by "capabilities" he means something that inheres in the
DNA. Because he merely treats it as a "plausible hypothesis" that
those humans who are permanently severely retarded still have the
capability.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> If I were putting together a band I would reject all applicants who
> >> >> could
> >> >> not sing or play a musical instrument. Is that "bandism"? I suppose
> >> >> so,
> >> >> technically, but so what? Is it wrong? Of course not. I make up a word
> >> >> that
> >> >> denotes discriminating in favour of a particular group of individuals
> >> >> that
> >> >> doesn't make it wrong just because the word looks similar to other
> >> >> words
> >> >> that describe unjustified discrimination.
>
> >> >> > So perhaps the appropriate thing would be to say "Yes,
> >> >> > Rupert, you have been quite right all along that speciesism should
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > rejected."
>
> >> >> So-called "speciesism" as presented by people such as you is nothing
> >> >> but
> >> >> shabby sophistry, should be seen as such, and therefore 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.
>
> >> >> Because we're not talking about animal welfare, the subject is a
> >> >> specious
> >> >> concept called "speciesism". If you want to have a discussion about
> >> >> the
> >> >> treatment of pigs then start another thread, don't try to derail this
> >> >> topic.
>
> >> > Perhaps you could help me get clearer about your views.
>
> >> I doubt it, you are too stubborn and obtuse.
>
> >> > Do you agree
> >> > that there is a distinction between speciesist and non-speciesist
> >> > ethical theories?
>
> >> "Specieisism" is a specious notion, it doesn't involve a valid ethical
> >> principle.
>
> > What I want to know is if you think it's a meaningful distinction or
> > not.
>
> It is an indicator of a constellation of capacities and abilities, in that
> respect it is significant. The fact that different animalspecieshave
> unique dna signatures that denote theirspeciesmembership is not in itself
> nearly as significant, note my friendly alien example, it would be as
> non-human as possible.
>

Jon Wetlesen claims that those marginal humans who permanently lack
the ability to be a moral agent "may" still have the capability. What
I would like is for you to explain what this claim means.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
> >> > to be rejected?
>
> >> Yes, for the reason I just stated, along with "non-speciesism", the
> >> entire
> >> concept should be and largely is seen as nonsense.
>
> >> > If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
> >> > about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
> >> > with you."
>
> >> I could not disagree with you any more vehemently. The term "speciesism"
> >> is
> >> a not-very-clever sophism. Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous
> >> to
> >> racism and sexism, but they are wrong. Racism and sexism are forms of
> >> discrimination based on the assumption that certain fundamental
> >> differences
> >> exist between the races or the genders when in fact they do not, the
> >> differences are false, trumped up. The differences betweenspeciesare
> >> real,
> >> and we are correct to factor those differences in our attitude towards
> >> variousspecies. You do it, we all do it. Discrimination based on real
> >> differences is sanity. Would you let your 4 year old drive your car for
> >> fear
> >> of being labeled "ageist"?
>
> > I'm unclear on what our point of disagreement is.
>
> Go through the previous paragraph sentence by sentence and go "agree" or
> "disagree", yes, or no, then you'll know.
>

The term "speciesism" is a not very clever sophism: disagree
Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous to racism or sexism, but
they are wrong: disagree
I have no other points of disagreement but I think that you
misunderstand what the charge of "speciesism" amounts to. I would
regard Jon Wetlesen's ethical theory as non-speciesist.

> *Saying that an
>
> > ethical theory should be non-speciesist is not saying that you are not
> > allowed to discriminate on the basis of cognitive capacities.
>
> Cognitive capacities arespeciesdependent. There is a certain range for
> eachspecies, and there are impairments and dysfunctions, butspecies
> membership gives us 99% of the relevant information. The other part of
> consideration is subjective, related to familial ties, or other personal
> considerations.
>

So what? My remark was correct.

> *It is
>
> > saying that theargumentfromspeciesnormalityshould be rejected.
> > You are not making it very clear whether you agree with the latter
> > point.
>
> Do you have a good link that states the ASN so I can look it over?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...marginal_cases (see
"Criticisms" section)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf

"Rupert" > wrote
> Jon Wetlesen claims that those marginal humans who permanently lack
> the ability to be a moral agent "may" still have the capability. What
> I would like is for you to explain what this claim means.

In order for a being to have the ability to act as a moral agent it must
first possess the capability for the ability to develop and manifest. A one
day old infant possesses this capability. It is in its dna, in his brain,
his being. He is making the reasonable assumption that even after the
ability becomes impaired or is lost, the capability that was always there
remains, or at least we can't assume it doesn't. I may have the capability
to speak a foreign language, develop the ability, then years later lose the
ability. The capability remains, even if it is weakened. It is your
birthright, like the capability of flight is the birthright of a bird. It is
part of the very essence of what a bird is, its in every cell.

>>
>> >> > Do you agree that speciesist ethical theories ought
>> >> > to be rejected?
>>
>> >> Yes, for the reason I just stated, along with "non-speciesism", the
>> >> entire
>> >> concept should be and largely is seen as nonsense.
>>
>> >> > If you agree on those two points then what's to argue
>> >> > about? Presumably in that case you should say "Yes, Rupert, I agree
>> >> > with you."
>>
>> >> I could not disagree with you any more vehemently. The term
>> >> "speciesism"
>> >> is
>> >> a not-very-clever sophism. Advocates hope to imply that it is
>> >> analogous
>> >> to
>> >> racism and sexism, but they are wrong. Racism and sexism are forms of
>> >> discrimination based on the assumption that certain fundamental
>> >> differences
>> >> exist between the races or the genders when in fact they do not, the
>> >> differences are false, trumped up. The differences betweenspeciesare
>> >> real,
>> >> and we are correct to factor those differences in our attitude towards
>> >> variousspecies. You do it, we all do it. Discrimination based on real
>> >> differences is sanity. Would you let your 4 year old drive your car
>> >> for
>> >> fear
>> >> of being labeled "ageist"?
>>
>> > I'm unclear on what our point of disagreement is.
>>
>> Go through the previous paragraph sentence by sentence and go "agree" or
>> "disagree", yes, or no, then you'll know.
>>
>
> The term "speciesism" is a not very clever sophism: disagree
> Advocates hope to imply that it is analogous to racism or sexism, but
> they are wrong: disagree
> I have no other points of disagreement but I think that you
> misunderstand what the charge of "speciesism" amounts to. I would
> regard Jon Wetlesen's ethical theory as non-speciesist.
>
>> Saying that an
>>
>> > ethical theory should be non-speciesist is not saying that you are not
>> > allowed to discriminate on the basis of cognitive capacities.
>>
>> Cognitive capacities arespeciesdependent. There is a certain range for
>> eachspecies, and there are impairments and dysfunctions, butspecies
>> membership gives us 99% of the relevant information. The other part of
>> consideration is subjective, related to familial ties, or other personal
>> considerations.
>>
>
> So what? My remark was correct.

So what? Species is a useful shortcut or marker to understanding the
limitations of any animal. Once I know I am dealing with a flea I don't need
to interview it. Once I know I am looking at chicken I know that it can't
distinguish right from wrong.


>> It is
>>
>> > saying that theargumentfromspeciesnormalityshould be rejected.
>> > You are not making it very clear whether you agree with the latter
>> > point.
>>
>> Do you have a good link that states the ASN so I can look it over?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...marginal_cases (see
> "Criticisms" section)
> http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
> http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/graham/graham1.html
> http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/a...ahamnnobis.pdf

I'm not that impressed with the ASN as I read it. I prefer to say that
capacities or capabilities are inherent in an animal from conception until
death, even as the abilities that they allow to manifest come and go. They
are never visible, they can only be inferred, and species is a way to do it.

On Apr 25, 9:43*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:09 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Apr 23, 8:09 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> > It is asking him to clarify his views. And it is relevant because he
> >> >> > has not refuted the AMC.
>
> >> >> I have.
>
> >> > What's the refutation?
>
> >> moralstat99
>
> > How would you define "capabilities"?
>
> From moralstat99
> -----------------------------------------------
> A rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases
> It may well be that Warren's proposal at this point is more adequate in
> relation to common sense than the positions of Regan or Singer.
> Nevertheless, it appears that all three of them have based their
> arguments on the assumption that the concepts of a moral person and a
> moral agent are synonymous or equivalent. This assumption can be
> contested, and if it is rejected, it seems that their arguments will not
> work.
> An alternative to their assumption has been developed by Jens Saugstad
> in his doctoral thesis on The Moral Ontology of Human Fetuses; A
> Metaphysical Investigation of Personhood (1994). On Saugstad's
> interpretation, Kant's concept of a moral person is generic in relation
> to that of a moral agent. This implies that the class of moral agents is
> a subclass of moral persons; some moral persons are moral agents, others
> are not.
> On the conceptual level Saugstad gets this result by distinguishing two
> kinds of capacities: capabilities and abilities. In order to be a moral
> agent, a person must be able to take a moral responsibility for his or
> her actions, and to be answerable for them. This requires not only the
> capabilities of free will, reason and a linguistic competence; but also
> the operative ability of realising these capabilities in practice.
> However, a subject may have the capabilities of moral agency without
> having the operative abilities. In that case the subject is a moral
> person without being a moral agent, since moral personhood is grounded
> on the actual capability and not on the potential ability.
> Two consequences follow from this solution. In the first place, it
> extends moral status to sentient marginal humans. The sufficient and
> necessary condition for this extension is the presence of the capability
> of moral agency. If this is present, it is not necessary that the
> operative ability is also present. On this ground equal inherent value
> and equal basic rights can be ascribed to both marginal and normal human
> beings.
> Admittedly, the assumption about the presence of this capability is not
> equally verifiable in all cases. In some cases it is verifiable, such as
> in normal youths, children, neonates, and foetuses in the later stages
> of pregnancy. They do not have the actual ability of being moral agents,
> but they have it potentially and it will be actualised in due time.
> Still they may be assumed to have the capability as an actual internal
> property, and this is the ground for considering them to be persons. It
> may be asked whether this argument justifies the assumption about equal
> moral status value. Would it not be possible to introduce grading on the
> basis of how far the potentiality for moral agency has developed? This
> view has been propounded in discussions about abortion. On the basis of
> the present argument, however, it must be rejected, since moral status
> value is assumed to be grounded on capabilities of agency, which are
> actual, and not on potential abilities.
> In other cases there are humans who have been moral agents, but have
> lost the required abilities. This pertains to many cases of the severely
> brain damaged and the severely senile. If we assume that they have
> retained their capabilities of being moral agents, we still have a
> sufficient reason for ascribing equal inherent value to them. Against
> this it may be objected that they may have lost not only their ability
> of being moral agents, but also their capability. There is room for much
> empirical doubt about these borderline cases, and for that reason there
> is also room for giving them the benefit of doubt. Admittedly, this is a
> somewhat ad hoc assumption. Even if it is not a good scientific
> explanation, however, it may be a good moral reason.
> This kind of argument can also be applied to the most difficult cases of
> marginal humans who have never had the ability of being moral agents and
> will never get it, such as the severely mentally retarded.
> Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that the capability is still
> there, and that this can be used as a ground for ascribing an equal
> moral status value to them. If this justification is not accepted,
> however, it does not necessarily follow that they have no moral status
> value at all. They may have a gradual moral status value, depending on
> the argument which we shall discuss below. As for those who are borne
> without a brain, they do seem to be excluded.
> According to the present argument, inherent value is ascribed equally to
> all moral persons. Hence this position is universalistic and
> egalitarian. If this way of understanding the relation between moral
> persons and moral agents works, there will be no need to distinguish
> Agent's Rights and Human Rights the way Warren does. They will be
> grounded in the same internal property of moral persons, and there will
> be no need for a supplementary justification based on an external
> relation such as membership in a human society.
> The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
> will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
> can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
> moral status. Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
> the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
> to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status, then its
> absence in other animals will be a sufficient condition for denying
> moral status to them. In this way Kant's anthropocentrism is vindicated,
> albeit with the proviso mentioned earlier that this rests on the
> contingent fact that only humans are moral persons. Theoretically, there
> might be other moral persons also, but there seem to be none, excepting
> perhaps some of our closest relatives among the primates.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I just re-read that passage this morning.

The difficulty is that no definition of the central term "capability"
is given.

Let us suppose that we have a human who has always been very seriously
mentally impaired ever since he was born, and has never had cognitive
abilities greater than that of a dog. Wetlesen claims that there is
some possibility that he might still have the capability to be a moral
agent, and therefore we have moral reason to extend the benefit of the
doubt and treat the individual as though he does in fact have that
capability. I assume that there is meant to be an objective fact of
the matter about whether the capability is in fact present. Suppose
that I were a scientist trying to resolve this question. How would I
go about trying to resolve it?

On Apr 25, 9:45*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Apr 23, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> The first thing to consider is that the moment you use the broad term
> >> >> "animals" the argument against "speciesism" immediately falls apart
> >> >> because
> >> >> no argument for equal consideration of animals can *possibly* include
> >> >> all
> >> >> animal life (e.g there is animal life in your hair, in the carpet,
> >> >> etc...)
> >> >> so the assumption must be made that it refers to certain animals only,
> >> >> and
> >> >> as soon as you do that you are engaging in "speciesism". And if the
> >> >> ARA
> >> >> says, no I am not selecting by species, I am selecting by the
> >> >> attributes
> >> >> of
> >> >> certain species, such as sentience or intelligence, the response, that
> >> >> is
> >> >> exactly what we are doing too.
>
> >> > But you refuse to spell out the details of your views, such as for
> >> > example what it entails about how pigs should be treated.
>
> >> The details are beside the point, bigger and better pens, no tail
> >> docking,
> >> more light, soothing music, whatever is shown to make them content, etc.
> >> The
> >> point is that I believe that they deserve a lot more consideration than
> >> fleas, and so do you, therefore both of us are "speciesist". I just don't
> >> have the same set of speciesist attitudes about the same species that you
> >> do. It would be folly to not use the information that an animal's species
> >> conveys to inform our ways of relating to them.
>
> > As far as the comparison with fleas go, fleas have a completely
> > different set of interests, so you haven't really shown that I'm
> > failing to follow the principle of equal consideration of interests.
> > That is not what I mean by speciesism.
>
> Don't fleas have an interest in survival?
>

Well, they may or may not, I'm not sure whether they are capable of
conscious experience. If they do have an interest in survival, then
that is one thing that they have in common with pigs, but it still
remains true that the set of interests a flea has is very different in
many important ways to the set of interests that a pig has. So even if
you were extending equal consideration to similar interests, you still
might end up treating a flea very differently to the way you would
treat a pig.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > And you have
> >> > provided no satisfactory response to the AMC.
>
> >> moralstat99