Re: ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 24, 2012, 1:52:03 AM4/24/12

to

On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> Video (8.38 minutes)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img

Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.

Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.

"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.

No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit.

Rupert

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 8:30:04 AM4/25/12

to

On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> > Video (8.38 minutes)
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>

The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case." Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
Animals are aware of what happens to them, and at least some of them
have some concept of the future.

> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>

Actually, it is very obviously true.

> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>

It's not bullshit.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 1:11:18 PM4/25/12

to

On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>>
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>> Video (8.38 minutes)
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>>
>> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
>> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
>> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
>> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>>
>
> The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."

Sophistry.

> Animals are
> aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.

Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.

>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>
> Actually, it is very obviously true.

No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them. "Matters to
them" is completely alien to animal mentation.

>
>> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
>> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>>
>
> It's not bullshit.

It's unadulterated bullshit.

Rupert

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 4:19:38 PM4/25/12

to

On Apr 25, 7:11 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>> Video (8.38 minutes)
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> >> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> >> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
> >> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> >> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>
> > The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> > Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."
>
> Sophistry.
>

What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
thenm?

> > Animals are
> > aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> > of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> > a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> > "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> > aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
>
> Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
> contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
> reality.
>

The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
reality.

> >> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> > Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.

These claims are quite absurd.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 5:46:29 PM4/25/12

to

No, that's wrong. Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.

>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> These claims are quite absurd.

They're not. They're correct. Because:

>
>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.

Because of that.

Rupert

unread,

Apr 26, 2012, 9:58:40 AM4/26/12

to

It's not. I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite
obviously).

> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> > These claims are quite absurd.
>
> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
>
>
> >> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> Because of that.
>

There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
concept, and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 26, 2012, 1:28:34 PM4/26/12

to

It is.

> I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite obviously).

Regan got it wrong, too, so you're following him in his error.

>
>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>
>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>>
>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>>
>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>>
>> Because of that.
>>
>
> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> concept,

There isn't.

> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.

Wrong. What you fuckwits are doing is substituting your judgment for
what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.

The statement was "Animals are aware of the world". The claim is that
in order for this to be true it is sufficient that animals be aware of
some aspects of reality. (This is my claim, not Regan's, but I am
confident that Regan would agree with me.)

This is quite obvious. To see that it is true one just has to be a
native speaker of the English language. I have no interest in trying
to educate you about what a perfectly ordinary English sentence means.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> >>>>>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >>>>>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> >>>>>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>
> >>>>>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
> >>>>>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> >>>>>> Because of that.
>
> >>>>> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> >>>>> concept,
>
> >>>> There isn't.
>
> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> some day no longer be in it.
>

She does understand the concept of death, and she is aware of various
aspects of the world just as you and I are, and just as your son was
when he was two years old. She has similar linguistic and cognitive
abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.

Dutch

unread,

Apr 27, 2012, 2:06:10 PM4/27/12

to

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
>> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>>
>> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>>
>> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>>
>> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
>> some day no longer be in it.
>>
>
> She does understand the concept of death,

On what do you base this?

> and she is aware of various
> aspects of the world just as you and I are

No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I was
going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>

> and just as your son was
> when he was two years old.

His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a great
philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.

> She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.

All unsupported supposition.

Rupert

unread,

Apr 27, 2012, 2:45:03 PM4/27/12

to

On Apr 27, 8:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> >> some day no longer be in it.
>
> > She does understand the concept of death,
>
> On what do you base this?
>

She has discussions about it with her caregivers.

> > and she is aware of various
> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>
> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I was
> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>

I didn't say that her awareness was similar to ours in every respect.
I said it was a property we had in common, which is true. Also, her
awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
of the world was at the age of two.

> > and just as your son was
> > when he was two years old.
>
> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a great
> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>

I think Ball's son is retarded, isn't he?

Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?

> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>
> All unsupported supposition.

No.

Dutch

unread,

Apr 27, 2012, 11:00:01 PM4/27/12

to

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ed79216-efd1-4c6f...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 27, 8:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the
>> >> >>> gorilla
>> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>>
>> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>>
>> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>>
>> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
>> >> some day no longer be in it.
>>
>> > She does understand the concept of death,
>>
>> On what do you base this?
>>
>
> She has discussions about it with her caregivers.

They don't know what she is thinking, if anything.

>> > and she is aware of various
>> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>>
>> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I
>> was
>> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>>
>
> I didn't say that her awareness was similar to ours in every respect.
> I said it was a property we had in common, which is true.

So what? Fruit flies are aware of various aspects of the world too.

> Also, her
> awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
> of the world was at the age of two.

So you repeat the AMC again and again, but that doesn't make it a valid
argument.

>
>> > and just as your son was
>> > when he was two years old.
>>
>> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a
>> great
>> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>>
>
> I think Ball's son is retarded, isn't he?
>
> Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
> two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
> Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?

Cognitively impaired humans may still possess the capability of higher
cognition, so we err on the safe side.

>> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
>> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
>> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
>> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
>> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
>> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>>
>> All unsupported supposition.
>
> No.

Yes, the interpretations of her trainers have been discredited by other
researchers. She mimics them.

Rupert

unread,

May 4, 2012, 1:10:57 PM5/4/12

to

On Apr 28, 1:00 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:7ed79216-efd1-4c6f...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 8:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the
> >> >> >>> gorilla
> >> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> >> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> >> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> >> >> some day no longer be in it.
>
> >> > She does understand the concept of death,
>
> >> On what do you base this?
>
> > She has discussions about it with her caregivers.
>
> They don't know what she is thinking, if anything.
>

How do you know?

> >> > and she is aware of various
> >> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>
> >> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I
> >> was
> >> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>
> > I didn't say that her awareness was similar to ours in every respect.
> > I said it was a property we had in common, which is true.
>
> So what? Fruit flies are aware of various aspects of the world too.
>

Ball claimed that animals are not aware of the world, which is obvious
rubbish. You may think it is a trivial point, if so take up the matter
with Ball who brought up the subject.

> > Also, her
> > awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
> > of the world was at the age of two.
>
> So you repeat the AMC again and again, but that doesn't make it a valid
> argument.
>

I didn't repeat the AMC, I made a correct assertion. If Ball wants to
claim that Koko is not aware of the world then he should also claim
that his son was not aware of the world at the age of two.

>
>
> >> > and just as your son was
> >> > when he was two years old.
>
> >> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a
> >> great
> >> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>
> > I think Ball's son is retarded, isn't he?
>
> > Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
> > two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
> > Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?
>
> Cognitively impaired humans may still possess the capability of higher
> cognition, so we err on the safe side.
>

What's "higher cognition" exactly?

> >> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> >> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> >> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> >> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> >> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> >> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>
> >> All unsupported supposition.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, the interpretations of her trainers have been discredited by other
> researchers. She mimics them.

Which other researchers?