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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:44 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, 5:12*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 10:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticim

On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. So...why not the kinship of race?

The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. Neither is the case with animals. No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.

You're just ****ed. The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-04-2012, 12:27 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, 11:00*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George *wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?

The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.

You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-04-2012, 03:51 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 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. So...why not the kinship of race?

The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. Neither is the case with animals. No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.

You're just ****ed. The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.


No, I don't. The AMC is simply demolished. It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.

You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. You're ****ing incoherent.

*YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-04-2012, 09:53 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 19, 4:51*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George * *wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?


The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.


You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.


No, I don't.


Yes, you do.

The AMC is simply demolished. *It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.

You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. *You're ****ing incoherent.


No-one I associate with is prone to violence. There is nothing
incoherent about the position I have put forward.

*YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.


Wrong.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-04-2012, 01:02 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 4/19/2012 1:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:51 pm, George wrote:
On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. So...why not the kinship of race?


The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. Neither is the case with animals. No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.


You're just ****ed. The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.


No, I don't.


Yes, you do.


Nope - I don't.


The AMC is simply demolished. It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.

You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. You're ****ing incoherent.


No-one I associate with is prone to violence.


That's a lie.


There is nothing
incoherent about the position I have put forward.


There is. You just recite, in a rote manner, that AMC is a sort of
magical sword. It isn't - it fails.

I've noticed that when that professional pro-"ar" agitator Nobis starts
out mentioning AMC, he says it as if it's just obvious that it's a
nuclear weapon against wooden spears:

If you have problems with the concept of a 'right,' you can also
think of this position as being equivalent to the following
proposition: 'It is morally wrong to kill animals and make them
suffer except in self-defense.' The most powerful argument for
this conclusion is the Argument from Marginal Cases.

So-called 'marginal cases' are humans who lack the ability to
reason or be held accountable for their actions but who are still
considered part of the moral community and have a right not to be
killed or made to suffer except in self-defense. (Philosophers
also call such people moral patients.) This argument is so crucial
to the animal rights debate that one philosopher, Daniel A.
Dombrowski, has written a whole book about it called Babies and
Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases.

I have never heard a satisfactory response to this stunning argument.


The only thing "stunning" about it is how wrong it is. Note that he
doesn't suggest there might be a counterargument to it, which of course
is the argument from species normality - an argument the "aras" plainly
do *not* understand.

*YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.


Wrong.


Nope - I'm right again. It's getting to be a habit.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-04-2012, 06:33 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 20, 2:02*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/19/2012 1:53 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Apr 19, 4:51 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George * * *wrote:
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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?


The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.


You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.


No, I don't.


Yes, you do.


Nope - I don't.


Much joy may this belief bring you.

The AMC is simply demolished. *It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.


You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. *You're ****ing incoherent..


No-one I associate with is prone to violence.


That's a lie.


No, of course it's not a lie, the people I associate with are not
violent people, apart from you who once fantasised about smashing your
fist into my face.

There is nothing
incoherent about the position I have put forward.


There is. *You just recite, in a rote manner, that AMC is a sort of
magical sword. *It isn't - it fails.

I've noticed that when that professional pro-"ar" agitator Nobis starts
out mentioning AMC, he says it as if it's just obvious that it's a
nuclear weapon against wooden spears:

* * * If you have problems with the concept of a 'right,' you can also
* * * think of this position as being equivalent to the following
* * * proposition: 'It is morally wrong to kill animals and make them
* * * suffer except in self-defense.' The most powerful argument for
* * * this conclusion is the Argument from Marginal Cases.

* * * So-called 'marginal cases' are humans who lack the ability to
* * * reason or be held accountable for their actions but who are still
* * * considered part of the moral community and have a right not to be
* * * killed or made to suffer except in self-defense. (Philosophers
* * * also call such people moral patients.) This argument is so crucial
* * * to the animal rights debate that one philosopher, Daniel A.
* * * Dombrowski, has written a whole book about it called Babies and
* * * Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases.

* * * I have never heard a satisfactory response to this stunning argument.

The only thing "stunning" about it is how wrong it is.


You're not quoting Nobis there, that's David Graham.

Note that he
doesn't suggest there might be a counterargument to it, which of course
is the argument from species normality - an argument the "aras" plainly
do *not* understand.


He goes on to discuss the argument from species normality in that same
article you are quoting, which he says is the most important
counterargument.

*YOU* are the one who doesn't understand this.


Wrong.


Nope - I'm right again. *It's getting to be a habit.


Much joy may this belief bring you.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-04-2012, 06:57 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 20, 7:33*am, Rupert wrote:
On Apr 20, 2:02*am, George Plimpton wrote:









On 4/19/2012 1:53 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 19, 4:51 pm, George *wrote:
On 4/19/2012 4:27 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 11:00 pm, George * *wrote:
On 4/18/2012 10:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Apr 18, 5:12 pm, George * * *wrote:
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 articleqdydn[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?


You could try to defend the claim that that's a morally significant
"special tie" if you wished. My claim has only ever been that that
does indeed require some argument, that the burden of proof is on the
speciesist. And you would have to explain why the racist is not
entitled to claim special ties based on race.


So within a species, it is permissible to give special consideration to
the interests of my child ahead of the interests of an unrelated child
because of kinship. *The other child has the same interest in food,
shelter, safety, etc., but you say the default position is that I can
give the interests of my child absolute priority over the interests of
the other child because of kinship. *So...why not the kinship of race?


The bullshit analogy between "speciesism" and racism, of course, does
not hold, for reasons that I've given that you cannot refute. *First,
members of another race generally have whatever morally relevant factor
(MRF) one might use to say one is eligible for inclusion. *Second, those
members are themselves capable of articulating their eligibility, and
have done so. *Neither is the case with animals. *No non-human animal
has either the actuality or the potential to be a moral agent.


You're just ****ed. *The bullshit sophism of the "ar"/"al" mob is destroyed.


For a relevant comparison you would have to look at those humans who
lack moral agency, and ask whether the criteria of species membership
or race membership are relevant to determining their moral status.


No, I don't.


Yes, you do.


Nope - I don't.


Much joy may this belief bring you.

The AMC is simply demolished. *It doesn't work to do
anything; that's why the recitation of it is always done so rote.


You and the rest of your radical violence-prone mob have said that any
entity with a welfare deserves equal consideration of its interests to
any other entity, yet you're trying to waffle and show how I can give
some entities' interests higher priority. *You're ****ing incoherent.

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2014, 07:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 22
Default "Speciesism" - a disgusting neologism, a specious criticism

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 rather than say what is substantially wrong
with it, "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,


The actual status of any individual person as a moral agent is not
determinative of anything. It is the fact that rights pertain to
members of the class that contains all moral agents, most of the members
themselves being or with the potential to become moral agents.



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 05:42 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