Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301   Report Post  
Old 17-07-2007, 11:57 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:44:18 GMT, Dutch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:07:32 +0100, irate wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:23:12 GMT, Dutch wrote:
irate vegan wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:00:10 GMT, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:37 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:

I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your
criticisms of it are unsatisfactory.

Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.

I would also add that that essay, moralstat99.doc, which you like so
much, endorses this argument of mine. I showed where in the thread
"The myth of food production efficiency...", in conversation with Ball.

Are you referring to the suggestion that we may have a prima facie moral
obligation to consume a vegetarian diet?

No, of course not. Here is the quote.
"When we affirm that some objects have inherent value while others
do not, we treat them differently with regard to moral status. If this
differential treatment is to be sound and not arbitrary, it must be
justifiable by some relevant difference. This requirement is warranted
by the Principle of Formal Equality which can hardly be avoided if we
are to think consistently in practical matters. Presumably, the best
way of formulating this principle is as follows: Cases which are
relevantly similar, should be treated in a similar manner; a
differential treatment requires a relevant difference.

Applied to the question of moral status, this should be spelled out as
follows: If we ascribe moral status to some objects and not to others,
the first objects must have some relevant property to the required
degree, and the other objects must lack this property, or at least
not have it to the degree required. If this property is a necessary
condition for moral status, its absence in other objects will be a
sufficient condition for denying moral status to them; while if it is
only a sufficient condition, it must be lacking in other objects, and
they must have no other properties in addition which are sufficient
conditions for being ascribed moral status."

The author goes on to lay the groundwork for his conclusion

By denying the antecedent, no less.


Exactly right.


No, exactly wrong, grossly incorrect. The groundwork is rigorous
philosophical argument.


I've shown where he denies the antecedent to get his point
accepted, which is anything but "rigorous philosophical
argument."

14 pages later, on page 20, as follows:

"The second consequence which follows from this position is that there
will be a relevant difference between human and non-human beings, which
can justify a differential treatment with regard to the ascription of
moral status.

Ipse dixit and false. The author must define what this "relevant
differences" is, AND that it justifies disrespectful treatment.

Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is accepted
to be a necessary condition for the ascription of moral status,

1) If animals have the capacity of moral agency, then they have
moral status.

then its absence in other animals

2) Animals don't have the capacity of moral agency

will be a sufficient condition for denying moral status to them."

Therefore (3) they have no moral status.

Any argument that denies the antecedent to gain acceptance
must always be rejected as specious.

1) If animals have the capacity of moral agency, then they have
moral status.
2) Animals don't have the capacity of moral agency
therefore
3) they have no moral status.

or

1) If a, then c
2) Not a
therefore
3) not c

All bullshit.


No, it's a simple syllogism to show where the author denies
the antecedent to get his point accepted.


He doesn't


I've shown that he does. There's no getting away from it.

Moral agency and moral status are not one and the same.


I'm not saying they are.


You're barking up the wrong tree.


Not at all. Moral agents are distinct from moral patients
as lawmakers capable of enduring the consequences of
their wrong actions.

What I'm saying is that a lack of
moral agency doesn't show a lack of moral status.


He doesn't say that it does.


Yes, he says exactly that by writing,

"Humans have a property which other animals lack, notably
the capability of being moral agents, and if this property is
accepted to be a necessary condition for the ascription of
moral status, then its absence in other animals will be a
sufficient condition for denying moral status to them."

Beings
can still have moral status without having moral agency.
The author concedes this by writing,


Of course he concedes it.


No, he doesn't. What he does is deny them moral status
on the basis that they lack moral agency, but he then goes
on to contradict himself in the following passage below this
paragraph by elevating primates to moral persons.

"Theoretically, there might be other moral persons also,
but there seem to be none, excepting perhaps some of
our closest relatives among the primates."

I then wrote,

"It follows, then, that apes hold rights due to his fact that
they "are moral persons.""

and you replied,

"Possibly. I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that
apes should be granted basic rights."
Dutch 7 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/328k8h


Yes, all reasonable..


Then, not only does the author fail to debunk the argument
from marginal cases, he ascribes rights to non-human animals
by elevating them to rights-holding moral persons, and you
agree with him.

The capacity for moral agency is the basis for full moral status.


You've moved the goalposts from "moral status" to "full moral
status"


I haven't moved the goalposts


I've shown that you have. You initially started out with "moral
persons" and then widened the goalposts to "*full* moral
persons." That's a perfect "shifting the goalposts" example.

but that effort still doesn't explain how a lack in moral
agency demonstrates a lack in moral status.


The capacity for moral agency is the high water mark of sentience, it
is a part of the set of higher cognitive functions which set humans
apart from all other species.


Even if true, it still doesn't follow that beings with a lesser
cognitive ability than ours have no moral status, and that
our higher cognitive abilities somehow justifies using them
as tools in the laboratory and farmed foods.

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx


I'm going to tell you this once, stop the nonsense of dragging up
quotes from years ago or I'll just ignore you.


Your quotes which advocate rights for animals are past
and present, and I shall continue to bring them here to
show that you're an immoral, lying imbecile. Why do you
advocate rights for animals while advocating that they be
farmed and slaughtered for nothing more than your taste
for meat? Why do you promote vivisection on them while
knowing them to be rights-holders? If animals hold any
rights against us at all, the minimum must be to be spared
the maximum of all possible wrongs.

  #302   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 03:57 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 65
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!

On Jul 17, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.


I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.


Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an
obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope
to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply
shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a
failed position.


I've given my argument plenty of times. I stated it very clearly in my
talk which you read. It's the argument from marginal cases. It
requires a response. No adequate response has been forthcoming. Ball
is saying there is no "formal principle of justice". In that case,
there would have been no reason why advocates of slavery couldn't have
just said "blacks have lower moral status than whites, and that's all
there is to it." He's maintaining that somehow or other the case for
the abolition of slavery was made without the formal principle of
justice. He's given no explanation of how. You're making a big song
and dance about this essay you like so much. Yes, it's an interesting
essay, but it makes no real attempt to explain the crucial notion of
"capability". You don't understand the notion either, you've just
swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because you think it supports your
position.

Saying "the burden is on you" just means "the argument from marginal
cases requires a reply". Unlike Ball, at some level you realize this,
because you're not content to just endlessly say "no, it requires no
reply, you're just shifting the burden", eventually you realize you
have to actually make an effort to rebut it. You think you've got a
rebuttal, but it's very weak. I've explained why. We can talk about it
more if you like.

Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a
morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on
them to show that the morally relevant difference exists.


Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly.


The crucial notion of "capability" is left completely without
explanation. You're not reading the text critically. It's reasonable
to say "Oh, that's an interesting idea, I guess I'll have a look at
the thesis he refers to and see if there's anything in it". It's not
reasonable to say "He's demolished the argument from marginal cases".
I'm quite sure he himself would acknowledge that he hasn't given an
adequate explanation of the notion of "capability". When you encounter
something which you think is congenial to your position, you
completely suspend your critical faculties.

It is
argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key
determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that
rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as
your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of
sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other
mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and
plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of
sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of
humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your*
attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life.


Cognitive capacities clearly *are* morally relevant in some contexts.
Species is not. He's trying to get around this by saying that all
humans have some special property which nonhuman animals don't have,
but he hasn't given an adequate account of what that property is.

If this
weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation
of black people.


Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there
is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence)
between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no
valid response.


The argument from marginal cases is analogous to this.

Those who argue that animals and humans should receive
equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans
possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden.

The author of the essay you admire so much, and every
other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me.


You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly.


It's not a fallacy. Just stating the facts. The fact that you don't
realize they are facts is what makes you look silly.

Those who

want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have
to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't.


I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience"
(including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including
you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion.


I have read it. It's not good enough. No real attempt is made to
explain the crucial notion of "capability".

To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense.
As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly.


He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents
have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a
positive argument for one's position.


It's a reasonable way to proceed, and it's not essentially different
to the way in which emancipation of black people was argued for.



You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to
be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that.


You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has
not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily
emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be
able to see that.


Not a single argument of mine has been adequately dealt with, and if
you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your anti-AR agenda
you might be able to see that.



Ball's alternative account of where
the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained.
He has given no satisfactory response.
I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from
marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and
our relationship with animals.


You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about
some more.


The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and
convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the
fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is,
Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of
reason.


As discussed above and elsewhere, this is complete crap. I've been
trying to be polite, unlike you, and express my objections in a
neutral, open-minded, measured way. There's obviously no point. You've
got the idea that this is some kind of unanswerable, knock-down
refutation. That's not the response of someone who's evaluating the
text critically and honestly. He's introduced a term "capability",
which he says is explained further in someone else's thesis, and can
be made the basis of an answer to the argument from marginal cases. He
hasn't made any real attempt to explain the term. It's just a
promissory note, nothing more. We'll have a look at the thesis and see
what we find.

  #303   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 03:59 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 65
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!

On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your
criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.


I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.


Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an
obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope
to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply
shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a
failed position.


By now, it's apparent the "ar" side can't support their
fundamental proposition, and thus don't even bother to
try. The dishonesty comes in acting as if the
proposition is proved, and generally accepted; an
axiom, in other words. It is not.

Good other points below.


What's apparent is that you are incapable of engaging with the
arguments in any serious way. Dutch has at least showed us an essay
which acknowledges that there is an argument that needs to be engaged
with and makes a serious attempt to do so.



Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a
morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on
them to show that the morally relevant difference exists.


Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. It is
argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key
determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that
rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as
your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of
sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other
mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and
plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of
sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of
humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your*
attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life.


If this
weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation
of black people.


Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there
is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence)
between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no
valid response. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive
equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans
possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden.


The author of the essay you admire so much, and every
other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me.


You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly.


Those who
want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have
to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't.


I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience"
(including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including
you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion.


To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense.
As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly.


He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents
have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a
positive argument for one's position.


You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to
be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that.


You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has
not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily
emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be
able to see that.


Ball's alternative account of where
the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained.
He has given no satisfactory response.
I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from
marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and
our relationship with animals.


You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about
some more.


The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and
convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the
fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is,
Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of
reason.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #304   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 04:01 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 65
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!

On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote:





On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.


I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.


You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily,
asserted where it lies.


No. I have given an argument. And I've pointed out the inadequacies in
your criticisms of the argument. And then I've done it again. And
again. And again. And it still doesn't stop you from mindlessly
blabbering that I've just made an unsupported assertion. You're
obviously not capable of engaging with the argument in a serious way.
Fine, not my problem.

You are wrong. The burden of
supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral
consideration lies on YOU and your other failure
"aras". We know you can't meet it.



  #305   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 05:35 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.
I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.

Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an
obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope
to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply
shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a
failed position.


I've given my argument plenty of times. I stated it very clearly in my
talk which you read. It's the argument from marginal cases. It
requires a response. No adequate response has been forthcoming.


An adequate response has been provided, you rejected it, the only reason
you can give is that you don't grasp what "capability" means. I submit
that something in your mind is blocking you from understanding a very
simple word.

Ball
is saying there is no "formal principle of justice". In that case,
there would have been no reason why advocates of slavery couldn't have
just said "blacks have lower moral status than whites, and that's all
there is to it." He's maintaining that somehow or other the case for
the abolition of slavery was made without the formal principle of
justice. He's given no explanation of how. You're making a big song
and dance about this essay you like so much. Yes, it's an interesting
essay, but it makes no real attempt to explain the crucial notion of
"capability". You don't understand the notion either, you've just
swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because you think it supports your
position.

Saying "the burden is on you" just means "the argument from marginal
cases requires a reply". Unlike Ball, at some level you realize this,
because you're not content to just endlessly say "no, it requires no
reply, you're just shifting the burden", eventually you realize you
have to actually make an effort to rebut it. You think you've got a
rebuttal, but it's very weak. I've explained why. We can talk about it
more if you like.


Talk all you want, the rebuttal along with the essay is thorough and
convincing.

Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a
morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on
them to show that the morally relevant difference exists.

Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly.


The crucial notion of "capability" is left completely without
explanation.


It's OBVIOUS what capability means for Gods sake.

You're not reading the text critically. It's reasonable
to say "Oh, that's an interesting idea, I guess I'll have a look at
the thesis he refers to and see if there's anything in it". It's not
reasonable to say "He's demolished the argument from marginal cases".
I'm quite sure he himself would acknowledge that he hasn't given an
adequate explanation of the notion of "capability". When you encounter
something which you think is congenial to your position, you
completely suspend your critical faculties.


Bullshit, when YOU encounter something antagonistic to YOUR position you
somehow lose the ability to comprehend simple language.

It is
argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key
determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that
rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as
your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of
sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other
mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and
plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of
sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of
humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your*
attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life.


Cognitive capacities clearly *are* morally relevant in some contexts.
Species is not. He's trying to get around this by saying that all
humans have some special property which nonhuman animals don't have,
but he hasn't given an adequate account of what that property is.


Yes he has.


If this
weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation
of black people.

Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there
is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence)
between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no
valid response.


The argument from marginal cases is analogous to this.


Except that it FAILS, while the argument for emancipation succeeds.

Those who argue that animals and humans should receive
equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans
possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden.

The author of the essay you admire so much, and every
other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me.

You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly.


It's not a fallacy. Just stating the facts. The fact that you don't
realize they are facts is what makes you look silly.


No, the fact that you don't recognize a basic fallacy makes YOU look
silly, it also makes you a presumptuous twit, but we knew that.

Those who

want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have
to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't.

I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience"
(including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including
you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion.


I have read it. It's not good enough. No real attempt is made to
explain the crucial notion of "capability".


LOL! A human child has the capability to become a moral agent, a baby
chick does not.

To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense.
As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly.

He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents
have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a
positive argument for one's position.


It's a reasonable way to proceed, and it's not essentially different
to the way in which emancipation of black people was argued for.


Advocates of emancipation successfully described what were the basis for
rights and successfully argued that blacks held those attributes, as
whites do.

You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to
be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that.

You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has
not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily
emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be
able to see that.


Not a single argument of mine has been adequately dealt with, and if
you were not so heavily emotionally invested in your anti-AR agenda
you might be able to see that.


I'm not invested at all. I don't belong to an "anti-AR" group like you
belong to an "Animal Liberation" group, in fact you're the local
president or some such thing. I don't advertise myself as a paid
lecturer on "anti-AR". I don't have a reputation to defend. YOU are the
one who is heavily invested, YOU. You can't see ANYthing that
contradicts your agenda.



Ball's alternative account of where
the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained.
He has given no satisfactory response.
I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from
marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and
our relationship with animals.
You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about
some more.

The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and
convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the
fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is,
Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of
reason.


As discussed above and elsewhere, this is complete crap. I've been
trying to be polite, unlike you, and express my objections in a
neutral, open-minded, measured way.


No you haven't, your arrogance isn't polite, you're smarmy, and you're
CLEARLY not neutral, and you're NOT open minded. You're full of shit.
Your mind is CLOSED for business.

There's obviously no point. You've
got the idea that this is some kind of unanswerable, knock-down
refutation. That's not the response of someone who's evaluating the
text critically and honestly. He's introduced a term "capability",
which he says is explained further in someone else's thesis, and can
be made the basis of an answer to the argument from marginal cases. He
hasn't made any real attempt to explain the term. It's just a
promissory note, nothing more. We'll have a look at the thesis and see
what we find.


Look all you want, the word is transparent.


  #306   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 07:27 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your
criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.
I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.
Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an
obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope
to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply
shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a
failed position.

By now, it's apparent the "ar" side can't support their
fundamental proposition, and thus don't even bother to
try. The dishonesty comes in acting as if the
proposition is proved, and generally accepted; an
axiom, in other words. It is not.

Good other points below.


What's apparent is that you are incapable of engaging with the
arguments in any serious way.


What's apparent is the arguments for "ar" aren't
serious, not least because they assume the fundamental
thing they must show.


Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a
morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on
them to show that the morally relevant difference exists.
Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. It is
argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key
determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that
rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as
your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of
sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other
mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and
plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of
sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of
humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your*
attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life.
If this
weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation
of black people.
Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there
is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence)
between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no
valid response. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive
equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans
possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden.
The author of the essay you admire so much, and every
other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me.
You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly.
Those who
want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have
to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't.
I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience"
(including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including
you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion.
To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense.
As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly.
He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents
have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a
positive argument for one's position.
You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to
be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that.
You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has
not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily
emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be
able to see that.
Ball's alternative account of where
the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained.
He has given no satisfactory response.
I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from
marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and
our relationship with animals.
You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about
some more.
The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and
convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the
fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is,
Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of
reason.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #307   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 07:27 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote:





On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.
I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.

You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily,
asserted where it lies.


No. I have given an argument.


No, rupie, you haven't. You've mumbled an asssertion,
and run away from supporting it.


You are wrong. The burden of
supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral
consideration lies on YOU and your other failure
"aras". We know you can't meet it.



  #308   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 07:41 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the lying skirt-boy wrote:





On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.
There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.
You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.
I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.

You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily,
asserted where it lies.


No. I have given an argument. And I've pointed out the inadequacies in
your criticisms of the argument. And then I've done it again. And
again. And again. And it still doesn't stop you from mindlessly
blabbering that I've just made an unsupported assertion. You're
obviously not capable of engaging with the argument in a serious way.
Fine, not my problem.


If someone insisted that plants had rights would we automatically
inherit the burden to disprove that too? Doesn't it make sense that a
person advancing a case should make some argument to defend it?


You are wrong. The burden of
supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral
consideration lies on YOU and your other failure
"aras". We know you can't meet it.



  #309   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2007, 07:56 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!

Rupert wrote:
Dutch has at least showed us an essay
which acknowledges that there is an argument that needs to be engaged
with and makes a serious attempt to do so.


It's a serious, rigorous, positive approach to moral status that YOU
need to address. Beyond explaining moral status more definitively, it
just happens that it deals with the argument from marginal cases.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
there Petra will follow the request, and if Madeleine not sails it too, the suffering will destroy from time to time the deaf cottage Josef P. Madren Ponds 0 14-11-2007 05:36 AM
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too! Rudy Canoza[_2_] United Kingdom 0 25-06-2007 09:13 PM
What rights do I have Blondie Australia 11 01-01-2007 07:36 AM
Help! Brown lawn. Too short, Too long, Too much water or Too little water???? Brad and Julie Vaughn Lawns 9 04-09-2003 12:22 AM
Help! Brown lawn. Too short, Too long, Too much water or Too lois Lawns 0 27-08-2003 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017