"Obtuseness" should've been qualified with "intentional." It appeared to me that you were deliberately misinterpreting my misstated prose for "laffs." I'm glad that you don't feel insulted since no slight was meant.
> What did you think of the Posner/Singer debate in slate
> >(assuming that you read it)? Both of the philosophy graduate students I
> >spoke with felt that Singer got the better of him.
>
> Did read it. The philosophy grad students would think that, wouldn't they?
> What was the debate about?
The debate was about animal rights and whether ethical arguments and/or goverment regulations should/could be of any service in promoting them. I'm perplexed by your statement that the grad students would naturally side with Singer. One was a Kantian with libertarian political leanings and little concern for the interests of animals (I actually agree with him that many non-human animals don't meet any reasonable criteria for personhood). He wondered if Singer would be dissapointed after such a weak challenge. Basically, Posner stated that even a superior ethical argument carried to its logical conclusion must give way if faced with a powefully contrary intution. Wait a second... I think I'm begining to see why the grad students would be inclined to side with Singer.
-- Luke