spin

PB:
------------
All right, we're progressing, if slowly.
------------

No, we're not, you still continue to jump to unwarranted conclusions on not enough information.


PB:
------------
Can you think of another big difference between a rape victim and a slaughtered cow?
------------

Yes, the slaughtered cow probably had a longer history of maltreatment.

spin:
----------
A human animal may cut off another's hand, but I find the wanton death of an animal, which has no possibility to defend itself, worse.
----------

PB:
----------
You would honestly prefer that I cut off your hand rather than kill a cow?
----------

Hard choice for me. Would you rather have your hand cut off to save a human animal's life?

spin

tronvillain,

when you start of a post thus:

-------------------
I didn't say that.
-------------------

It's better not to use a deictic reference, but explain what it is exactly you are referring to, otherwise, given the throughput of messages one will never understand.

Pomp

spin,

Assert, assert, assert. When are you going to present an actual argument?

I work on the notion that you are not inherently different from other animals.

You "work on" a fallacious notion. Humans are inherently different from cows are inherently different from dogs are inherently different from whales are inherently different from canaries. The issue is not whether there are any inherent differences, but whether or not those differences, which obviously do exist, are morally significant.

Perhaps one animal has one thing it can do better than others. Dogs have a great sense of smell. Most birds can fly. Etc. Modern humans have the capacity to organize thought through linguistic means.

Stop right there. Think about what you've just said.

(Before this happened they weren't too different from chimpanzees and bonobos.)

But now, by your own admission, we are.

Humans are just specialised in a particular way...

Yes. Specialized in the particular way that allows us to entertain notions such as morality.

The human animal has exerted its own style of might means right over the whole surface of the world. Had some other species been dominant, then that would have been stiff for humans.

True. You and I wouldn't be here arguing about it. So what?

Right action doesn't make the distinction between humans and other animals.

Assert, assert, assert.

(As I hope we've seen, humans are just one species with one specialisation -- though many humans make some qualitative difference based on that one specialisation.)

Because there is a qualitative difference. None of the species that we consume for food are able to think in the abstract, to conceive of or understand a system of morality. You cannot deny this fact. You can, of course, deny that this is a morally significant difference, in which case we will have to either agree to disagree or else examine the foundation of your moral system, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

As you are an animal, why do you turn your back on other animals?

As you are a carbon based life form, why do you turn your back on other carbon based life forms? Save the carrots!

Pomp

spin,

I said:

Can you think of another big difference between a rape victim and a slaughtered cow?

You replied:

Yes, the slaughtered cow probably had a longer history of maltreatment.

All right, we're moving at a snail's pace (oops...perhaps snails are offended by such idioms...I'd best watch my language). You can either continue to bring up irrelevencies, dancing around the difference that I am aiming at, which should be fairly obvious, or you can answer directly: can you think of yet another big difference between a rape victim and a slaughtered cow?

I said:

You would honestly prefer that I cut off your hand rather than kill a cow?

You replied:

Hard choice for me. Would you rather have your hand cut off to save a human animal's life?

Yes.

Viti

I am closing down this topic at least temporarily to let tempers cool down.