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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 04:50 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 16, 5:37*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.

I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. *I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying. If I say that my
position is that only moral agents have moral obligations, then you
don't get to make the "interpretation" that that is not really what I
am saying. You take me at my word, that is part of what is involved in
serious debate.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 05:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.

I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. I really do.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 07:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 16, 6:37*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * *There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. *I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. *I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if that is what
you choose to do, but you don't get to advance them as the truth while
simultaneously being regarded as engaging in serious debate.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 03:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 07:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 16, 4:47*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy.. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * * There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. *I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. *I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.


Where do the stories come from, then?


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 07:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.


Where do the stories come from, then?


There aren't any stories.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 07:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 16, 8:54*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * * *There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden..


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. *I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. *I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.


Where do the stories come from, then?


There aren't any stories.


Yes, there are. You are telling a story about "what I am really
saying" which is contrary to what I tell you I am saying.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 02:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/16/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 16, 8:54 pm, George wrote:
On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.


Where do the stories come from, then?


There aren't any stories.


Yes, there are.


No.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 06:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 17, 7:57*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/16/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:





On Apr 16, 8:54 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * * * There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance.. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism". *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman.. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 12, 4:16*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:

In [email protected] com,
says...
Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.


That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
* They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. *We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. *No animals give that kind of consideration.

Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.


That's not moral consideration.

Do you have a dog?


Yes. *I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. *The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. *But it doesn't work that way. *If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. *That's just how it is.


That's a straw man. Not a single person has ever suggested that you
shouldn't rescue your son in such circumstances.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 17, 7:27*pm, "Mr.Smartypants"
wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:57*am, George Plimpton wrote:









On 4/16/2012 11:44 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 8:54 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/16/2012 11:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 4:47 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 6:37 am, George * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:50 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:37 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 8:15 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 5:02 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:41 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 3:32 am, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:30 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 16, 2:11 am, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 3:05 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:42 pm, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:51 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:04 am, George * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 11, 7:15 pm, wrote:
The very word itself, if we can hold our noses and call it a word, is
disgusting. *Most spell-checkers reject it as a properly spelled English
word. *It's a revolting neologism, coined by sophists.


One of the most obvious defects in the "ar" criticism of so-called
"speciesism" is that it rather than say what is substantially wrong
with, "ar" passivists instead commit a logical fallacy, what might be
called the Guilt by Association or "Bad Company" fallacy. *At the very
outset of any "ar" condemnation of "speciesism", there is an immediate
attempt to link it with racism and sexism, as if that's all that's
needed to show that "speciesism" not only is morally wrong but deeply
evil. *In fact, the very word itself, with its "ism" suffix, is
deliberately - I would say cynically - intended to suggest this linkage.
* * * * * * There is no escaping the fact that this is a fallacy. *If someone is
going to say that "speciesism" is wrong, he's going to have to say why
it is wrong in its substance.


The comparison, however, is wrong in *its* substance. *Not only is it a
logical fallacy to condemn "speciesism" simply by comparing it to racism
and sexism, but the comparison is false; it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. *First of all, putting aside any concern about "marginal
cases", there *is* a general morally significant difference between
humans and all other species, a difference that is wholly
species-dependent. *Humans are moral agents; no other animal species
contains any moral agents. *That is a morally significant difference -
so much so, that "ar" passivists say humans are *obliged* to alter their
view of animals as a result of it. *In other words, "ar" passivists are
themselves "speciesist" in condemning "speciesism".. *The failure of race
to be a morally significant separator is too obvious to require much
comment. *Whatever moral attribute people might want to use as a
criterion for discrimination, race does not logically include or exclude
an individual. *If admission to prestigious universities is to be
granted based on high grades and high standardized test scores, then
there is no valid reason to exclude someone of any given race if he has
sufficiently high scores. *We don't need to invoke "marginal cases" to
see what's wrong with using race or sex as a discriminating criterion:
some, or perhaps even many, members of historically disadvantaged human
groups meet the objective criteria for inclusion.


The second way in which the comparison fails is that racial minorities
and women are able to advance their own claims that they possess the
traits that are supposed to be the criteria for inclusion. *In fact, the
very act of making their own claim is part of the demonstration that
they *do* possess those relevant traits. *Other species' members cannot
do this - *none* of them.


For these reasons, "speciesism" fails as a criticism of the human use of
animals.


If you think that moral agency is the crucial morally relevant factor,
then extend the same amount of consideration to all moral patients,
human or nonhuman.


You've given no valid reason why we should.


You've given no valid reason not to, and it's your job to do that.


No, it isn't. *You're proposing a massive change - it's your burden to
prove that we ought to make it.


The burden is on you and the other radicals, and predictably - because
you're do-nothing passivists - you're shirking your burden.


My proposal above simply amounts to taking your suggestion that moral
agency is the crucial factor seriously.


As it is an attribute that only attaches to one species, it's "speciesism".


You don't know that it only attaches to one species


We all know that it does.


No.


Yes.


That's not speciesism.


It's incoherent, is what it is.


Why?


Already explained.


No.


Yes - explained.


I am not aware


Liar.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that I am a liar.


Of course I have.


No, you don't. Actually, you have quite rational grounds for thinking
that I am telling the truth. Because I am saying that I am not aware
of you having explained why it is incoherent to extend the same amount
of moral consideration to all moral patients, human or nonhuman. And
you have in fact never made any attempt to explain this, so it is
quite reasonable to suppose that I would not be aware of your having
done so. So it is quite rational for you to believe that I am telling
the truth, and not lying.


Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Sometimes they do but that is irrelevant.


They never give the sort of consideration you say humans must give, and
it's entirely relevant. *It's what shows that you are being "speciesist"
yourself.


Nonhuman animals can't give the same sort of consideration that humans
give, and it's not speciesist to refuse to ask them to do something
beyond their cognitive capacities.


It *is* "speciesist" - you keep forgetting the quotes, asshole - to
demand they do something based on a species-dependent trait.


Saying that we *must*, due to
some intrinsic feature of our species, is "speciesist" (always put
quotes around "speciesism" and "speciesist" to indicate they're bullshit
made-up pseudo-words.)


No, it's not. It's not speciesist to say that moral agents have moral
obligations.


It's "speciesist" - you forgot the quotes, you **** - to say that humans
are obliged to behave in a particular way based on a species-dependent
attribute.


That's not what is being said.


That *is* what is being said.


Obviously only moral agents can have moral obligations.


Not what you're saying.


Yes. It is precisely what I am saying.


No, it is not.


Actually, it is.


It isn't.


I am the one who gets to decide what I am saying.


I get to interpret what you're really saying. *I'm right.


No, you don't get to interpret what I'm saying.


I do. *I really do.


You do get to make up stories about what I'm saying if


That's not what I'm doing.


Where do the stories come from, then?


There aren't any stories.


Yes, there are.


No.


Yes.


Indeed.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 12:29 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/17/2012 2:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:

In articleqdydnaX0Os30yRvSnZ2dnUVZ5h[email protected] com,
says...
Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.


That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. No animals give that kind of consideration.

Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.


That's not moral consideration.

Do you have a dog?


Yes. I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. But it doesn't work that way. If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. That's just how it is.


That's a straw man.


No, it isn't. You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings. It's bullshit, of
course, but that's your claim.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 12:39 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.


That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
* *They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. *We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. *No animals give that kind of consideration.


Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.


That's not moral consideration.


Do you have a dog?


Yes. *I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. *The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. *But it doesn't work that way. *If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. *That's just how it is.


That's a straw man.


No, it isn't. *You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings.


Plumpton won't even admit that with modern prosthetics for bovines you
can have your cow and eat it too.

Sure the cow must use a walker but at least the cow is alive.



  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 01:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On Apr 18, 1:29*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/17/2012 2:00 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:


In [email protected] com,
says...
Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.


That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
* *They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. *We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. *No animals give that kind of consideration.


Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.


That's not moral consideration.


Do you have a dog?


Yes. *I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. *The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. *But it doesn't work that way. *If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. *That's just how it is.


That's a straw man.


No, it isn't. *You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings. *It's bullshit, of
course, but that's your claim.


It does not follow from this claim that you are not morally entitled
to rescue your son in the circumstances you described. The principle
of equal consideration is consistent with special ties.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 04:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/18/2012 5:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:29 am, George wrote:
On 4/17/2012 2:00 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, George wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:43 AM, Zerkon wrote:


In [email protected] com,
says...
Other species don't give any consideration to the interests of
individual members of different species.


Not correct. Ants herd, 'milk' and protect aphids. It's a great
assumption either way if this is defined as some aspect of "giving
consideration" however the associated behaviors humans regard as such
are still proved fact so a denial that a sense of consideration is
present can not be arrived at logically.


That's not the kind of consideration being prescribe by "ar" passivists.
They advocate that humans cause no harm to animals, or allow no harm
to happen, that they would not cause or allow to happen to a human. We
don't morally allow painful medical experimentation and testing to be
done on humans, so they say we shouldn't do it with animal subjects
either. No animals give that kind of consideration.


Symbiotic relationships permeate many if not all forms of life. For
instance, no one can claim certainty that one of the hundreds of species
of micro-organisms living inside each human that enable humans to live
are not "giving consideration to the interests" of their host.


That's not moral consideration.


Do you have a dog?


Yes. I do give moral consideration to her interests, but not as much as
I give to the interests of my son. The "ar" passivists say I should
give the dog's interests equal consideration to those of my son, and no
more consideration to my son's than to any other person's or other
animals. But it doesn't work that way. If I arrive to pick my son up
from school and find the school is on fire and my son and another child
are in the classroom, and I have an opportunity to rescue one child
only, then I'm afraid little Billy's parents are going to be grieving
while I tuck my son safely in his bed that evening. That's just how it is.


That's a straw man.


No, it isn't. You claim that I should give equal moral consideration to
the interests of all subject-of-a-life beings. It's bullshit, of
course, but that's your claim.


It does not follow from this claim that you are not morally entitled
to rescue your son in the circumstances you described. The principle
of equal consideration is consistent with special ties.


Special ties like species membership, perhaps?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it [email protected] Vegan 415 20-10-2016 12:36 PM
We tried Burger King's menu item that's being called a "disgusting disgrace" -- here's what it's really like Ubiquitous Restaurants 0 07-03-2016 10:22 AM
"15 Disgusting Foods Your Grandparents Probably Loved" Nancy2[_2_] General Cooking 20 24-08-2015 06:20 PM
"15 Disgusting Foods Your Grandparents Probably Loved" Mal Pais General Cooking 0 23-08-2015 05:36 PM
Goo enjoys watching "disgusting animal combats". [email protected] Vegan 1 06-11-2012 04:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017