Carl Cohen said “Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” and you are demonstrating this for everyone right here
Siting a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them, as the source of your morals, is deeply terrible by it’s own, but even besides that, what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote? “Animals need to be exploited because it’s human’s true obligation”. This doesn’t make any sense as an argument unless you’re truing to justify your sadism by beating down every opposing argument with repetition and circular reasoning. That’s what you’re demonstrating here for everyone.
Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free
moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral
claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none
or
The issue is one of kind. Humans are of such a kind that they may be the
subjects of experiments only with their voluntary consent . . . Animals are of such a kind
that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or make a
moral choice. What humans retain when disabled, animals never had
Yeah, much argument, very reason. “It’s cool to kill those whom I want to kill because they’re different, you see, therefore don’t have my rights”.
" what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote"
that you are demonstrating how treating animals and humans differently is essential. we don’t think it’s ok to spray toxic chemicals over whole populations of people, but doing so to crop-destroying insects is widely accepted practice.
That’s not what those words in that order mean.
But if that’s the argument you are trying to have with me, then what a weird attempt at gotcha that is, what a misguided argument it is. It’s one step above from “well, potato is also alive therefore vegans are murderers hehehe I’m very smart”.
I don’t know about you, but I like to minimise pain and distress to other creatures that can feel pain and distress, that I do. And this weird chain of logic “you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” doesn’t work in this framework.
"“you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” "
That’s what you said. Maybe you didn’t mean that, in which case your argument is even less coherent, but if we try to distill your argument into something that we can talk about - and boy am I trying to - that’s the only argument there.
“a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them”
this is pure ad hominem. it’s called poisoning the well. what they say is either true or false, and the individual making the claim doesn’t change the truth value
You’re doing “fallacy fallacy” but badly. I’m not poisoning the well, I’m clearly stating that I dislike a person that states garbage opinions. Their opinions are bad, and a person is bad for thinking it, those are two separate thoughts I have.
“Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none”
Carl Cohen said “Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” and you are demonstrating this for everyone right here
Siting a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them, as the source of your morals, is deeply terrible by it’s own, but even besides that, what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote? “Animals need to be exploited because it’s human’s true obligation”. This doesn’t make any sense as an argument unless you’re truing to justify your sadism by beating down every opposing argument with repetition and circular reasoning. That’s what you’re demonstrating here for everyone.
or
Yeah, much argument, very reason. “It’s cool to kill those whom I want to kill because they’re different, you see, therefore don’t have my rights”.
" what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote"
that you are demonstrating how treating animals and humans differently is essential. we don’t think it’s ok to spray toxic chemicals over whole populations of people, but doing so to crop-destroying insects is widely accepted practice.
That’s not what those words in that order mean.
But if that’s the argument you are trying to have with me, then what a weird attempt at gotcha that is, what a misguided argument it is. It’s one step above from “well, potato is also alive therefore vegans are murderers hehehe I’m very smart”.
I don’t know about you, but I like to minimise pain and distress to other creatures that can feel pain and distress, that I do. And this weird chain of logic “you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” doesn’t work in this framework.
"“you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” "
this isn’t what i said. it’s a strawman.
That’s what you said. Maybe you didn’t mean that, in which case your argument is even less coherent, but if we try to distill your argument into something that we can talk about - and boy am I trying to - that’s the only argument there.
“That’s not what those words in that order mean.”
yea, it is.
“a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them”
this is pure ad hominem. it’s called poisoning the well. what they say is either true or false, and the individual making the claim doesn’t change the truth value
You’re doing “fallacy fallacy” but badly. I’m not poisoning the well, I’m clearly stating that I dislike a person that states garbage opinions. Their opinions are bad, and a person is bad for thinking it, those are two separate thoughts I have.
“You’re doing “fallacy fallacy” but badly.”
no, i wasn’t, but you are now.
Oh, we’re at the “no u” stage or our conversation, I see
“Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none”
this is exactly what deontologists believe
Yeah, and that’s only one way of many why strict deontologists are morally wrong.
they’re not wrong, at least they’re not any more wrong than utilitarians or divine command theorists.
circular reasoning is internally consistent.