Jump to content
LSK

"People" T - monkeys are people too, plan must benefit monkeys

Recommended Posts

By the way, can anyone name five cases that meet that definition of "persons" AND any definition of "social services?"

 

Sure.

 

- USFG spends $500 million on food for persons in poverty.

- USFG spends $500 million on housing and habitats for persons in poverty.

- USFG spends $500 million on health care for persons in poverty.

- USFG spends $500 million on tutoring persons in poverty in ASL.

- USFG spends $500 million on zoo jobs for humans in poverty, at least $100 million of which goes towards helping chimpanzees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I don't know how I missed this thread till now. I need like a google alert for animal rights stuff on cross-x so I don't miss things like this.

 

Some random thoughts (1) As it is currently framed I don't understand how this T/K would work as anything except a link of omission. And despite my theoretical musings (which I mostly stick by) I totally admit that from a strategic standpoint you are unlikely to win rounds on links of omission. Indeed, my theoretical conceptions on why links of omission matter still need some polish. So, from a standpoint of winning rounds, don't go for links of omission. But I will try to give more thoughts to this from a neg position later on.

(2) The obvious other point is this is a great idea for designing an affirmative. There exists substantial literature on arguing that great apes are persons (using that specific term). I highly suggest as a start Cavalieri and Singer's The Great Ape Project http://www.amazon.com/Great-Ape-Project-Equality-Humanity/dp/031211818X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243924598&sr=8-1 It's a good book to begin with. There you can find lots of cards about how great apes are persons, and how legally recognizing that fact can destroy speciesism, etc. And I am sure I don't have to say this, but stopping speciesism has wonderful advantages like preventing genocide, checking back biopolitics, being key to every liberation movement ever, being able to have ethics, etc. It seems like a fairly straightforward and wonderful case.

 

"He who understands baboons would do more towards metaphysics than Locke."-Charles Darwin

Edited by TheScuSpeaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a pretty good impact card.

from here http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102661

 

Until the Left engages the "animal question," in short, it cannot reclaim the mantle of progressive thinking in the moral and scientific realms; it cannot advance the development of new values and identities; it cannot understand the origins and dynamics of hierarchy. Much of this work can begin once the Left overcomes the last remaining socially acceptable form of prejudice, discrimination, exploitation, violence, and mass slaughter ¯ such as stems from and is legitimated by speciesism ¯ and begins to address the scientific findings, and moral implications of, cognitive ethology.

 

By ignoring this recent and profoundly important scientific revolution, one that has direct moral implications and carries the potential for a new enlightenment and a comprehensive ethics of life, the Left has forfeited any claim it could possibly have to moral leadership, progressive values, and radical politics; it has become increasingly obvious that the deficiencies of Leftist thought toward the animal question vitiate its ability to address pressing social and environmental crises. And this is a tragic loss, for only radical theorizing and revolutionary politics of social movement can steer us out of the crisis that threatens humans too with extinction, but it is one that must grasp the systemic connections linking the exploitation and devastation of humans, nonhumans, and the Earth.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was already said, this argument wouldn't hold a thimble of water on its own, but with a properly organized animal rights K or similar you could make this work. You might get a win off shock value as I'm sure that there isn't a camp anywhere that prepped this.

 

Ultimately this is going to only function as a link back to the K as the definition doesn't specifically exclude plans that provide for people. At best you can argue a partial topicality and try to force a holistic interpretation of the resolution on you, but they will be able to work their way out of the issue by simply granting you that your definition doesn't cover their plan and providing a better definition to win the limits/ground debate. That's all a side show because the real battle is on the K side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...