• "Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it

    From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Tue Oct 18 23:09:19 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
    nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
    interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
    on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 21:36:38 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
    nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain >>>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all, >>>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their >>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with >>>> no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
    on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


    No, they are not.

    They are.


    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except >>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the >>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself >>>> "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.


    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do - far better than you, wobbler.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 22:06:05 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:









    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing >>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain >>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all, >>>>>> all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their >>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with >>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of >>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should >>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying >>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    No, they are not.

    Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
    to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
    not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
    demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


    No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
    their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
    not speciesism.

    That's not what they're saying. They're saying that humans are obliged
    to act in a specific way due to a trait that sets them apart from all
    other species. That's speciesism, in the vilest sense of the word.
    It's exactly equivalent to saying that blacks are obliged to sit at the
    back of the bus for a trait distinctive to their race.

    "aras" are speciesists. This is not in rational dispute.

    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except >>>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the >>>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself >>>>>> "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.

    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.









    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is >>>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation, >>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism", >>>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of >>>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that >>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same >>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who >>>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on >>>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.

    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
    participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

    "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.

    Why not?

    I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
    normality defeats it, among other things.

    The argument from species normality is flawed.

    No, it isn't. It is the argument from marginal cases that is fatally
    flawed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 22:08:24 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:









    On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing >>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their >>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of >>>>>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should >>>>>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species' >>>>>> members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying >>>>>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    No, they are not.

    Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due >>>> to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact >>>> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
    demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)

    No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
    their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
    not speciesism.

    That's not what you're doing.


    Why not?

    Why isn't your paternal grandfather also your maternal
    great-grandmother, you fucktard?

    Sometimes, wobbler, the answer is: just because.




    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
    by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
    interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
    "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.

    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.

    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
    by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation, >>>>>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism", >>>>>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
    *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that >>>>>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same >>>>>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
    are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
    his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.

    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
    participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

    "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.

    Why not?

    I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
    normality defeats it, among other things.

    The argument from species normality is flawed.

    No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.

    Wrong.

    No, I'm right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 22:11:41 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









    On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
    interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
    on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    No, they are not.

    Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
    to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
    not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence >>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)

    No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to >>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is >>>>>>> not speciesism.

    That's not what you're doing.

    Why not?

    You tell us what your motive is.

    I don't understand this.

    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
    by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
    interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
    "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.

    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.

    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
    by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
    are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
    etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
    *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
    they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
    species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
    are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
    his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.

    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot >>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

    "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.

    Why not?

    I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species >>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.

    The argument from species normality is flawed.

    No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases. >>
    Wrong.

    Nope; right.

    What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?

    Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
    you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
    That seems very reckless and irresponsible.


    I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
    normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
    species,

    So, when you smirkingly demanded that I enumerate the premises of the
    argument, you were just trying to waste my time, as you already knew.
    You were just fucking off.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 21:35:46 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
    nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
    interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species,

    Bullshit.


    and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    So, you *are* a speciesist, just as I said. You hold humans to a
    different moral standard. You view humans as morally superior to other species, based solely on a trait they uniquely possess.

    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
    by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
    interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
    "speciesist."


    It's not.

    It is, of course.

    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
    by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
    are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
    etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
    *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
    they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
    species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
    are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
    his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.


    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
    participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to any greater degree
    than nonhuman animals.

    But they are of the *kind* of entity that *uniquely* can participate in
    a moral community. No non-human animals can. The overwhelming majority
    of humans can.

    As has been shown countless times, your "marginal cases" garbage fails.
    It *never* leads to the extension of greater moral consideration to dumb non-human animals; all it *ever* leads to is a diminution of
    consideration for the human marginal cases.

    You and Singer want to perform horrific medical experiments on them.


    That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
    member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
    his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
    irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
    *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
    those in the advantaged group.

    The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
    spurious.

    The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
    of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
    interests of members of our own species. Forget about "marginal cases"
    - that doesn't achieve anything.

    Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.

    No.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 22:23:12 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:









    On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
    nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
    interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
    on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    No, they are not.

    Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
    to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
    not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence >>>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)

    No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to >>>>>>>>> their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
    not speciesism.

    That's not what you're doing.

    Why not?

    You tell us what your motive is.

    I don't understand this.

    Yes, you do.









    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
    by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
    interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
    "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.

    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.

    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
    by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
    are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
    etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
    *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
    they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
    species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
    are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
    his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity. >>
    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

    "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.

    Why not?

    I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species >>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.

    The argument from species normality is flawed.

    No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases. >>
    Wrong.

    Nope; right.

    What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality?

    Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do
    you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are?
    That seems very reckless and irresponsible.

    I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
    normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is
    determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's
    species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
    experiments which show this premise to be problematic.

    Have a go at it.


    Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
    understand advanced mathematics?

    Sure: the chimpanzee that has never existed and that no one has any
    reason to think ever will exist.

    Rights are something to aid in regulating relations in the real world,
    not in some demented science fiction thought experiment cooked up by psychotics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rudy Canoza@21:1/5 to Rupert on Wed Oct 19 22:25:17 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    On 4/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
    On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, Donn Messenheimer <wieber.blows@taft_sucks.org>
    wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 10:50 PM, Rupert wrote:









    On Apr 11, 2:16 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 3:54 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 10, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/10/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 10:41 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/9/2012 12:04 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 4:31 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, notgen...@yahoo.com wrote:
    "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
    nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
    why human use of animals is wrong. This is meaningless. First of all,
    all species are "speciesist": the members of all species pursue their
    interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
    no regard for the interests of other species.

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
    use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

    No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
    members.

    The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
    on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

    No, they are not.

    Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
    to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
    not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)

    No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
    their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
    not speciesism.

    That's not what you're doing.

    Why not?

    You tell us what your motive is.

    I don't understand this.

    Yes, you do.

    The "ar" passivists
    cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
    by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
    interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
    "speciesist."

    It's not.

    It is.

    You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

    I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.

    Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
    by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
    are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
    etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
    *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
    they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
    species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
    are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
    his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity. >>
    There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

    "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.

    Why not?

    I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species >>>>>>>>>>>> normality defeats it, among other things.

    The argument from species normality is flawed.

    No, it isn't. It fully defeats the fake argument from marginal cases.

    Wrong.

    Nope; right.

    What exactly are the premises of the argument from species normality? >>
    Above you wrote, "The argument from species normality is flawed." Do >>>>>> you mean to say you wrote that without knowing what the premises are? >>>>>> That seems very reckless and irresponsible.

    I believe that one of the premises of the argument from species
    normality is that the moral consideration an individual should get is >>>>> determined by what characteristics are typical for that individual's >>>>> species, and I believe that it is possible to construct thought-
    experiments which show this premise to be problematic.

    Have a go at it.

    Do you know the thought-experiment of the chimpanzee who can
    understand advanced mathematics?

    Another way the bogus "marginal cases" argument is queered is by >>>>>>>> pointing out that rather than elevate the moral consideration given to >>>>>>>> animals, it would tend to lessen that given to the marginal cases.

    It would probably do both.

    No.

    You just don't have a sound argument against "speciesism".

    The burden of proof is on the *defender* of speciesism.

    The burden of proof is on the "ar" extremists who claim non-human
    animals deserve equal moral consideration.

    Wrong. If you think that you belong to a special group whose interests >>>>> deserve more consideration than those of other groups, the burden is >>>>> on you to explain why.

    Nope. As the overwhelming majority - 99% + - of people believe that it >>>> is correct to give more consideration to the interests of members of
    their species than to members of other species, you're going to have to >>>> make a case for why they're wrong. The burden is on you. The
    presumption that our interests should receive greater consideration is >>>> the champion; your position is the challenger. The challenger must
    defeat the champion, or the champion remains champion by default.
    That's how it works.

    No. There is a default presumption of equal consideration of interests
    in ethics.

    Who says so? Peter Singer?

    Peter Singer, and most other ethicists,

    Bullshit.


    That's a position he advocates polemically.
    How does he show that it ought to be considered the default? Who
    agrees with him? Not Bonnie Steinbock.


    Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
    the default starting position.

    /argumentum ad populum/, but also certainly false.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From M.I.Wakefield@21:1/5 to Rudy Canoza on Thu Oct 20 07:36:17 2016
    XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, alt.philosophy
    XPost: alt.politics

    "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:DQXNz.90020$oI2.61831@fx40.iad...

    On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

    Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
    other species,

    Bullshit.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10/17/baby-elephant-rescues-man-orig-llr.cnn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)