Vegetarian Discussion: "Differences That Are Typically Correlated With Species Difference..." - Jumping Jesus!

"Differences That Are Typically Correlated With Species Difference..." - Jumping Jesus!
Posts: 72

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 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-04-16 11:28:54 EST
That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,

Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
matter. Species difference in itself does not.

Holy mother of fuck! What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
difference" *is*? Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
the species difference. They don't merely "correlate" with species
difference - they *comprise* the difference. They are what make us
qualitatively, morally unique, and deserving therefore of a unique moral
consideration.

When you round that bend in the road and see the fawn and the child, you
don't have to ask yourself, "Does that *particular* child have a morally
qualitative difference from the fawn?" The difference is presumed, and
the presumption is unquestionable.

Every "ara" in the world knows this. Tom Regan and Peter Singer know
this. "ar theorists" <chortle> are engaging in nothing more than
self-exaltation and sophistry in trying to suggest otherwise.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-16 11:50:58 EST
On Apr 16, 9:28 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>
>     Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>     matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> Holy mother of fuck!  What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> difference" *is*?  Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
> the species difference.  They don't merely "correlate" with species
> difference - they *comprise* the difference.  They are what make us
> qualitatively, morally unique, and deserving therefore of a unique moral
> consideration.
>
> When you round that bend in the road and see the fawn and the child, you
> don't have to ask yourself, "Does that *particular* child have a morally
> qualitative difference from the fawn?"  The difference is presumed, and
> the presumption is unquestionable.


If you wish for morally qualitative difference then you have to admit
the child is capable of evil and the deer isn't.

You sure are stupid, Goo.




>
> Every "ara" in the world knows this.  Tom Regan and Peter Singer know
> this.  "ar theorists" <chortle> are engaging in nothing more than
> self-exaltation and sophistry in trying to suggest otherwise.


Rupert
2011-04-16 17:22:59 EST
On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>
>     Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>     matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> Holy mother of fuck!  What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> difference" *is*?  Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
> the species difference.  They don't merely "correlate" with species
> difference - they *comprise* the difference.  

That is obviously not true.

> They are what make us
> qualitatively, morally unique, and deserving therefore of a unique moral
> consideration.
>
> When you round that bend in the road and see the fawn and the child, you
> don't have to ask yourself, "Does that *particular* child have a morally
> qualitative difference from the fawn?"  The difference is presumed, and
> the presumption is unquestionable.
>
> Every "ara" in the world knows this.  Tom Regan and Peter Singer know
> this.  "ar theorists" <chortle> are engaging in nothing more than
> self-exaltation and sophistry in trying to suggest otherwise.


George Plimpton
2011-04-16 18:51:58 EST
On 4/16/2011 2:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>>
>> Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>> matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>>
>> Holy mother of fuck! What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
>> difference" *is*? Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
>> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
>> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
>> the species difference. They don't merely "correlate" with species
>> difference - they *comprise* the difference.
>
> That is obviously not true.

It is most obviously true. Those differences "correlate" with species
difference 100% because they *are* the species difference, you dumb fuck.

Rupert
2011-04-16 23:16:39 EST
On Apr 17, 8:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/16/2011 2:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>
> >>      Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
> >>      matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> >> Holy mother of fuck!  What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> >> difference" *is*?  Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> >> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> >> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
> >> the species difference.  They don't merely "correlate" with species
> >> difference - they *comprise* the difference.
>
> > That is obviously not true.
>
> It is most obviously true.  Those differences "correlate" with species
> difference 100% because they *are* the species difference, you dumb fuck.

I think you need some lessons in biology.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-16 23:36:55 EST
On Apr 16, 9:16 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/16/2011 2:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> > >> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>
> > >>      Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
> > >>      matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> > >> Holy mother of fuck!  What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> > >> difference" *is*?  Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> > >> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> > >> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
> > >> the species difference.  They don't merely "correlate" with species
> > >> difference - they *comprise* the difference.
>
> > > That is obviously not true.
>
> > It is most obviously true.  Those differences "correlate" with species
> > difference 100% because they *are* the species difference, you dumb fuck.
>
> I think you need some lessons in biology.-


Wouldn't do any good.

George Plimpton
2011-04-16 23:53:10 EST
On 4/16/2011 8:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:51 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2011 2:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>>
>>>> Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>>>> matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>>
>>>> Holy mother of fuck! What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
>>>> difference" *is*? Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
>>>> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
>>>> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
>>>> the species difference. They don't merely "correlate" with species
>>>> difference - they *comprise* the difference.
>>
>>> That is obviously not true.
>>
>> It is most obviously true. Those differences "correlate" with species
>> difference 100% because they *are* the species difference, you dumb fuck.
>
> I think you need some lessons in biology.

Fucktard: those are the species differences upon which people quite
rightly discriminate.

You really are going to hurt yourself if you keep trying to stretch like
that.

Rupert
2011-04-17 15:04:41 EST
On Apr 17, 1:53=A0pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/16/2011 8:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 8:51 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> =A0wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2011 2:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously=
writes,
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Differences that are typically correlated with species d=
ifference do
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> >>>> Holy mother of fuck! =A0What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> >>>> difference" *is*? =A0Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> >>>> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> >>>> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *=
ARE*
> >>>> the species difference. =A0They don't merely "correlate" with specie=
s
> >>>> difference - they *comprise* the difference.
>
> >>> That is obviously not true.
>
> >> It is most obviously true. =A0Those differences "correlate" with speci=
es
> >> difference 100% because they *are* the species difference, you dumb fu=
ck.
>
> > I think you need some lessons in biology.
>
> Fucktard: =A0those are the species differences upon which people quite
> rightly discriminate.
>
> You really are going to hurt yourself if you keep trying to stretch like
> that.

In the past you explicitly said it wasn't cognition.

Rupert
2011-04-19 06:13:22 EST
On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>
>     Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>     matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>
> Holy mother of fuck!  What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
> difference" *is*?  Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
> the species difference.  They don't merely "correlate" with species
> difference - they *comprise* the difference.  They are what make us
> qualitatively, morally unique, and deserving therefore of a unique moral
> consideration.
>
> When you round that bend in the road and see the fawn and the child, you
> don't have to ask yourself, "Does that *particular* child have a morally
> qualitative difference from the fawn?"  The difference is presumed, and
> the presumption is unquestionable.
>

Why is it unquestionable? Why couldn't there be a child who didn't
have the requisite qualities?

> Every "ara" in the world knows this.  Tom Regan and Peter Singer know
> this.  "ar theorists" <chortle> are engaging in nothing more than
> self-exaltation and sophistry in trying to suggest otherwise.


George Plimpton
2011-04-19 09:58:31 EST
On 4/19/2011 3:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:28 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> That excruciatingly sanctimonious moral nag Wobbly Woopert fatuously writes,
>>
>> Differences that are typically correlated with species difference do
>> matter. Species difference in itself does not.
>>
>> Holy mother of fuck! What does Wobbly Woopert thinks "species
>> difference" *is*? Humanity's abilities to invent, to create, to
>> explore, to relate, to feel, to reflect - abilities that no other
>> species has in any measure, to the best of our ability to detect - *ARE*
>> the species difference. They don't merely "correlate" with species
>> difference - they *comprise* the difference. They are what make us
>> qualitatively, morally unique, and deserving therefore of a unique moral
>> consideration.
>>
>> When you round that bend in the road and see the fawn and the child, you
>> don't have to ask yourself, "Does that *particular* child have a morally
>> qualitative difference from the fawn?" The difference is presumed, and
>> the presumption is unquestionable.
>>
>
> Why is it unquestionable? Why couldn't there be a child who didn't
> have the requisite qualities?

Woopert, do you have trouble reading? I just said that the difference
is presumed. Statistically, there is a far greater probability than 99%
that the child has the qualities. There is a 100% probability that the
fawn does not. *YOU* made that presumption yourself, Woopert, when you
said that you kill the fawn.

Kind, Woopert - it is a matter of kind. Because the child is of the
kind - the *only* kind - that has those qualities, there is a legitimate
and safe moral presumption that the individual child has them. You
don't have to ask yourself when you see the child and the fawn - you
presume, and the presumption is absolutely warranted.

You basically have already admitted it, Woopert, when you tried to
wriggle *into* making a species distinction while maintaining you
weren't doing so.


>
>> Every "ara" in the world knows this. Tom Regan and Peter Singer know
>> this. "ar theorists"<chortle> are engaging in nothing more than
>> self-exaltation and sophistry in trying to suggest otherwise.
>

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


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