Vegetarian Discussion: Moral Significance Of Species Membership

Moral Significance Of Species Membership
Posts: 30

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2010-06-26 16:56:08 EST
Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
request.

Ball asserted on March 16 2006 that species membership is morally
relevant. He has never offered any account of why that is so. Any
claim of mine to the contrary came at a later date.

It seems to me that what has happened here is that Ball has made an
assertion that he can't back up. Something which he claims is
dishonest.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-26 18:44:20 EST
On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> why it is morally relevant.

You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.

Rupert
2010-06-26 23:08:23 EST
On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> > of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> > why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> > request.
>
> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
> should automatically extended.
>

It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.

> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> nature of human morality.

Well, I don't agree.

Rupert
2010-06-26 23:08:55 EST
On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> > of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> > why it is morally relevant.
>
> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.

Yes, I have. You. You asserted it on March 16 2006. You have given no
example of me asserting the contrary prior to that.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 12:54:40 EST
On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>> why it is morally relevant.
>>
>> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
>> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>
> Yes, I have. You.

Nope. You first asserted that species difference has no significance.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 12:55:00 EST
On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
>>> request.
>>
>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
>> should automatically extended.
>>
>
> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
>> nature of human morality.
>
> Well, I don't agree.

You're wrong.

Rupert
2010-06-27 17:02:49 EST
On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com>  wrote:
> >> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>  wrote
>
> >>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
> >>> request.
>
> >> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
> >> should automatically extended.
>
> > It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
> > counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
> > about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>
> >> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
> >> nature of human morality.
>
> > Well, I don't agree.
>
> You're wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not an argument.

Rupert
2010-06-27 17:03:51 EST
On Jun 28, 2:54 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
> >>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
> >>> why it is morally relevant.
>
> >> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
> >> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>
> > Yes, I have. You.
>
> Nope.  You first asserted that species difference has no significance.

I have showed that you first asserted that it has significance on
March 16 2006. I don't believe that you can find any example of me
making the assertion that it has no significance prior to that date.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 17:09:43 EST
On 6/27/2010 2:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:55 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 8:33 am, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rupert"<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Ball thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>>>> why it is morally relevant. I'm not sure why this is an unreasonable
>>>>> request.
>>
>>>> It fails to define what equal consideration means while assuming that it
>>>> should automatically extended.
>>
>>> It was Ball who first made the assertion that species membership
>>> counts. I am simply asking him to back it up. If there is unclarity
>>> about what it means then it is his job to clarify, too.
>>
>>>> It's also an unreasonable demand because it is blind to the origins and
>>>> nature of human morality.
>>
>>> Well, I don't agree.
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
> That's not an argument.

No worse than "well I don't agree".


Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-27 17:10:57 EST
On 6/27/2010 2:03 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:54 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 8:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 8:44 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2010 1:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> thinks that it is an invalid approach to challenge to proponent
>>>>> of the moral significance of species membership to give an account of
>>>>> why it is morally relevant.
>>
>>>> You've never encountered anyone who *first* said that species membership
>>>> is significant, prior to your mincing assertion that it has no significance.
>>
>>> Yes, I have. You.
>>
>> Nope. You first asserted that species difference has no significance.
>
> I have showed that

You are the one who first asserted that species difference doesn't
matter. Only in response to that did I say that it does.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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