Vegetarian Discussion: Brain-injured Man Speaks After 6 Years

Brain-injured Man Speaks After 6 Years
Posts: 42

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Dutch
2007-08-01 22:51:08 EST
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/brain_injury_070801/20070801?hub=Health

There is always hope.

Rupert
2007-08-02 02:44:03 EST
On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/brain_in...
>
> There is always hope.

That's an inspiring story. Yes, fortunately, in many cases there is
some hope.

However, if you were trying to make a comment about the AMC then I'm
afraid it misses the mark. No reputable scientist is going to agree
that it's literally true that "there's always hope". Some humans are
like nonhuman animals in that they never have had linguistic
competence, reason, or moral agency, and there is no prospect that
they ever will, not the slightest hope. Unfortunately, that's the way
things are. Yet it is quite clear that these humans are entitled to a
high moral status. It's not contingent on our feelings of attachment
towards them or our religious ideas, it's what they are entitled to.
No-one would question that. And this can't be explained by saying that
they have a "capability" which nonhumans don't, there's no viable
scientific concept of "capability" which will yield that result. Hence
there is no good reason why the moral status which they are clearly
entitled to should not also be extended to nonhuman animals.


Dutch
2007-08-02 04:50:50 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/brain_in...
>>
>> There is always hope.
>
> That's an inspiring story. Yes, fortunately, in many cases there is
> some hope.
>
> However, if you were trying to make a comment about the AMC then I'm
> afraid it misses the mark.

No it doesn't, it rebuts the AMC to the extent that proponents would
attempt to use people in comas as part of the argument, just as
Wetlesen's thesis rebuts the AMC in the cases of infants and any other
person who can eventually develop linguistic competence, reason, or
moral agency.

> No reputable scientist is going to agree
> that it's literally true that "there's always hope".

Hope is not subject to scientific dictates, it can always exist, and as
such we can base our actions on it. The case above was considered a lost
cause at first.

> Some humans are
> like nonhuman animals in that they never have had linguistic
> competence, reason, or moral agency, and there is no prospect that
> they ever will, not the slightest hope. Unfortunately, that's the way
> things are.

Not unfortunate for you, you exploit their misfortune, or rather our
compassion for them, in this attempt to leverage moral status for
animals whose lives you regularly put at risk for your own convenience.
I find it difficult to contain my distaste for this tactic.

> Yet it is quite clear that these humans are entitled to a
> high moral status. It's not contingent on our feelings of attachment
> towards them or our religious ideas, it's what they are entitled to.

"Entitled" by what? Laws, social structures, religious tenets and moral
precepts all evolved simultaneously. People are entitled to what we
agree they are entitled to, laws on euthanasia for example vary.

The moral status these folks enjoy is largely derivative of the status
normal humans have. In other words the moral status is based on
membership in the human community rather than a particular level of
ability. Clearly the "high moral status" that such people enjoy (by that
I assume you mean we don't just kill them) has nothing to do with
linguistic competence, reason, or moral agency, therefore we must have
other reasons. Have you given any thought to what those reasons might be
besides simply assuming that our compassion for such people is something
you can exploit for your own purpose? Perhaps killing other humans is
something that is best not condoned for reasons of social harmony and
stability. By what loss of perspective do you fail to look for these
reasons? How can you attack humanity for having compassion for the
unfortunate and disabled members of our species? It's one of our
redeeming features.

> No-one would question that. And this can't be explained by saying that
> they have a "capability" which nonhumans don't, there's no viable
> scientific concept of "capability" which will yield that result. Hence
> there is no good reason why the moral status which they are clearly
> entitled to should not also be extended to nonhuman animals.

We do extend elevated moral status to nonhuman animals, we just don't do
it often enough or in the cases where you think we should. Yet you
benefit every day from the fact that we don't do it, as it allows you to
carry on living at home and thriving off commercial groceries and modern
medicine so you can be healthy enough to spend hours on the internet
arguing against the very things that allow you enjoy life as you do.

Consider this, there are people in persistent vegetative states with no
hope of ever recovering which we also grant this so-called elevated
moral status. Does this mean that we must also extend moral status to
plants?

Rupert
2007-08-02 07:57:35 EST
On Aug 2, 6:50 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/brain_in...
>
> >> There is always hope.
>
> > That's an inspiring story. Yes, fortunately, in many cases there is
> > some hope.
>
> > However, if you were trying to make a comment about the AMC then I'm
> > afraid it misses the mark.
>
> No it doesn't, it rebuts the AMC to the extent that proponents would
> attempt to use people in comas as part of the argument, just as
> Wetlesen's thesis rebuts the AMC in the cases of infants and any other
> person who can eventually develop linguistic competence, reason, or
> moral agency.
>

The AMC is about people who always have had and always will have
cognitive abilities similar to that of a nonhuman animal.

> > No reputable scientist is going to agree
> > that it's literally true that "there's always hope".
>
> Hope is not subject to scientific dictates, it can always exist, and as
> such we can base our actions on it. The case above was considered a lost
> cause at first.
>

But no-one is going to want to make the moral status of radically
cognitively impaired humans contingent on the level of hope that some
individual might feel.

> > Some humans are
> > like nonhuman animals in that they never have had linguistic
> > competence, reason, or moral agency, and there is no prospect that
> > they ever will, not the slightest hope. Unfortunately, that's the way
> > things are.
>
> Not unfortunate for you,

That's a disgusting thing to say. Here's me thinking you had developed
the capacity for reasoned debate. Fuck off.




Dutch
2007-08-02 17:23:10 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:50 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/brain_in...
>>>> There is always hope.
>>> That's an inspiring story. Yes, fortunately, in many cases there is
>>> some hope.
>>> However, if you were trying to make a comment about the AMC then I'm
>>> afraid it misses the mark.
>> No it doesn't, it rebuts the AMC to the extent that proponents would
>> attempt to use people in comas as part of the argument, just as
>> Wetlesen's thesis rebuts the AMC in the cases of infants and any other
>> person who can eventually develop linguistic competence, reason, or
>> moral agency.
>>
>
> The AMC is about people who always have had and always will have
> cognitive abilities similar to that of a nonhuman animal.

False
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anim-eth.htm

f. Two Common Arguments Against Indirect Theories

Two common arguments against indirect theories have seemed compelling to
many people. The first argument is The Argument from Marginal Cases; the
second is an argument against the Kantian account of indirect duties to
animals.

i. The Argument From Marginal Cases

The Argument from Marginal Cases is an argument that attempts to
demonstrate that if animals do not have direct moral status, then
neither do such human beings as **infants**, the senile, the severely
cognitively disabled, and other such "marginal cases" of humanity. Since
we believe that these sorts of human beings do have direct moral status,
there must be something wrong with any theory that claims they do not.
More formally, the argument is structured as follows:

(1) If we are justified in denying direct moral status to animals then
we are justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal cases.

(2) We are not justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal
cases.

(3) Therefore we are not justified denying direct moral status to animals.

>
>>> No reputable scientist is going to agree
>>> that it's literally true that "there's always hope".
>> Hope is not subject to scientific dictates, it can always exist, and as
>> such we can base our actions on it. The case above was considered a lost
>> cause at first.
>>
>
> But no-one is going to want to make the moral status of radically
> cognitively impaired humans contingent on the level of hope that some
> individual might feel.

Hope in many cases explains our actions towards marginal cases (i.e. we
do not kill them), and from those actions we deduce moral status. What
other evidence can you provide to show moral status?

>>> Some humans are
>>> like nonhuman animals in that they never have had linguistic
>>> competence, reason, or moral agency, and there is no prospect that
>>> they ever will, not the slightest hope. Unfortunately, that's the way
>>> things are.
>> Not unfortunate for you,
>
> That's a disgusting thing to say. Here's me thinking you had developed
> the capacity for reasoned debate. Fuck off.

I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight of
mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all huffy
and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.

Rupert
2007-08-02 20:58:05 EST
On Aug 3, 7:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight of
> mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all huffy
> and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
> self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.

There's no exploitation involved. The challenge is to develop a
consistent position.

You really are an annoying prat, Dutch. You say you have "good will"
towards the people you talk to, you really should make more of an
effort not to be so offensive.

I've taken great pains to engage in reasoned debate with you despite
the obstacles you place in the way. I don't have a "bloated self-
image", I have a realistic attitude about myself and my achievements.
Your attitude really is very tiresome. I'll engage with the rest of
your post if and when I feel like it. Apologizing for calling me
"disgusting" might help, but I've got no delusions about how likely
that is.


Dutch
2007-08-02 22:13:58 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186102685.430590.185530@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 3, 7:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight of
>> mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all huffy
>> and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
>> self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.
>
> There's no exploitation involved. The challenge is to develop a
> consistent position.

Then get started, because your position is far from it.

And no whining, "I'm not convinced... blah blah.."

>
> You really are an annoying prat, Dutch. You say you have "good will"
> towards the people you talk to, you really should make more of an
> effort not to be so offensive.
>
> I've taken great pains to engage in reasoned debate with you despite
> the obstacles you place in the way. I don't have a "bloated self-
> image", I have a realistic attitude about myself and my achievements.
> Your attitude really is very tiresome. I'll engage with the rest of
> your post if and when I feel like it. Apologizing for calling me
> "disgusting" might help, but I've got no delusions about how likely
> that is.

Why should I apologize to you, you offensive creep? How dare you imply that
my eating habits are the equivalent of killing retarded people?




Rupert
2007-08-02 22:17:55 EST
On Aug 3, 12:13 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186102685.430590.185530@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight of
> >> mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all huffy
> >> and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
> >> self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.
>
> > There's no exploitation involved. The challenge is to develop a
> > consistent position.
>
> Then get started, because your position is far from it.
>

Wrong.

> And no whining,

Fuck off.

> "I'm not convinced... blah blah.."
>
>
>
> > You really are an annoying prat, Dutch. You say you have "good will"
> > towards the people you talk to, you really should make more of an
> > effort not to be so offensive.
>
> > I've taken great pains to engage in reasoned debate with you despite
> > the obstacles you place in the way. I don't have a "bloated self-
> > image", I have a realistic attitude about myself and my achievements.
> > Your attitude really is very tiresome. I'll engage with the rest of
> > your post if and when I feel like it. Apologizing for calling me
> > "disgusting" might help, but I've got no delusions about how likely
> > that is.
>
> Why should I apologize to you, you offensive creep? How dare you imply that
> my eating habits are the equivalent of killing retarded people?

What makes you think you're entitled to take offence at that when you
can't give an adequate rational ground for doubting it?

If you find the expression of such opinions offensive, an animal
ethics forum is not the place for you.


Rupert
2007-08-02 22:23:11 EST
On Aug 3, 12:13 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186102685.430590.185530@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight of
> >> mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all huffy
> >> and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
> >> self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.
>
> > There's no exploitation involved. The challenge is to develop a
> > consistent position.
>
> Then get started, because your position is far from it.
>
> And no whining, "I'm not convinced... blah blah.."
>
>
>
> > You really are an annoying prat, Dutch. You say you have "good will"
> > towards the people you talk to, you really should make more of an
> > effort not to be so offensive.
>
> > I've taken great pains to engage in reasoned debate with you despite
> > the obstacles you place in the way. I don't have a "bloated self-
> > image", I have a realistic attitude about myself and my achievements.
> > Your attitude really is very tiresome. I'll engage with the rest of
> > your post if and when I feel like it. Apologizing for calling me
> > "disgusting" might help, but I've got no delusions about how likely
> > that is.
>
> Why should I apologize to you, you offensive creep? How dare you imply that
> my eating habits are the equivalent of killing retarded people?

I don't care how offensive you find it. You haven't given any rational
grounds for doubting it. If you can't bring yourself to engage with it
in a reasoned and civil way, then fuck off. People who can't tolerate
the expression of such opinions don't belong here.


Dutch
2007-08-02 22:34:24 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186107475.330422.120830@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 3, 12:13 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186102685.430590.185530@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 7:23 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I think it's disgusting to (1) exploit our compassion for the plight
>> >> of
>> >> mentally challenged people to press your case, and (2) to get all
>> >> huffy
>> >> and run every five minutes. In spite of your massively bloated
>> >> self-image, YOU are no paragon of reasoned debate.
>>
>> > There's no exploitation involved. The challenge is to develop a
>> > consistent position.
>>
>> Then get started, because your position is far from it.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
>> And no whining,
>
> Fuck off.

No, YOU fuck off, you despicable creep.

>> "I'm not convinced... blah blah.."
>>
>>
>>
>> > You really are an annoying prat, Dutch. You say you have "good will"
>> > towards the people you talk to, you really should make more of an
>> > effort not to be so offensive.
>>
>> > I've taken great pains to engage in reasoned debate with you despite
>> > the obstacles you place in the way. I don't have a "bloated self-
>> > image", I have a realistic attitude about myself and my achievements.
>> > Your attitude really is very tiresome. I'll engage with the rest of
>> > your post if and when I feel like it. Apologizing for calling me
>> > "disgusting" might help, but I've got no delusions about how likely
>> > that is.
>>
>> Why should I apologize to you, you offensive creep? How dare you imply
>> that
>> my eating habits are the equivalent of killing retarded people?
>
> What makes you think you're entitled to take offence at that when you
> can't give an adequate rational ground for doubting it?

I gave several completely adequate rebuttals, which you ignored.

> If you find the expression of such opinions offensive, an animal
> ethics forum is not the place for you.

What better place to express the opinion that such attitudes are disgusting
but a place where they are being expressed?



Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron