DOCSLIB.ORG

Bob Fischer's CV

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bob Fischer's CV BOB FISCHER [email protected] Department of Philosophy bobfischer.net Texas State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-393X 601 University Drive 512.245.2403 San Marcos, TX 78666 EMPLOYMENT Texas State University: Associate Professor of Philosophy 2019-present Texas State University: Assistant Professor of Philosophy 2013-2019 Texas State University: Senior Lecturer 2011-2013 EDUCATION University of Illinois at Chicago, Ph.D., Philosophy 2006-2011 Dissertation: Modal Knowledge, in Theory Director: W. D. Hart State University of New York at Geneseo, B.A., English & Philosophy 2001-2004 PUBLICATIONS BOOKS AUTHORED What Do We Owe Other Animals? Under contract with Routledge. (w/ Anja Jauernig) Wildlife Ethics: Animal Ethics in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Under contract with Blackwell. (w/ Christian Gamborg, Jordan Hampton, Clare Palmer, and Peter Sandøe) Animal Ethics — A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2021. The Ethics of Eating Animals: Usually Bad, Sometimes Wrong, Often Permissible. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Justification via Theories. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. BOOKS EDITED A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, 5th Edition. Under contract with Oxford University Press. (w/ Anthony Weston) Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (1st Edition: 2017) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Epistemology After Rationalism. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. (w/ Felipe Leon) The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. (w/ Ben Bramble) ARTICLES & BOOK CHAPTERS “Animal Agriculture, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: A Case Study in Indirect Activism.” Food Ethics, forthcoming. (w/ Alyse Spiehler) “Disgust and the Logic of Contamination: Biology, Culture, and the Evolution of Norm (Over)Compliance.” Mind & Language, forthcoming. (w/ Isaac Wiegman) “The Freegan Challenge to Veganism.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, forthcoming. (w/ Josh Milburn) “Morality on Holiday: Inspiring Ethical Behavior in Animal-based Tourism through Nonmoral Values.” Tourism Recreation Research, forthcoming. (w/ Carol Kline) “Who Should Do What for the Wild Animals We Abandoned?” Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research, forthcoming. “Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices. Animals 11.5 (2021): 1-39. (w/ Jordan Owen Hampton, Timothy Hall Hyndman, and Benjamin L. Allen) “Boycotting and Public Mourning.” Res Publica 26 (2020): 89-102. “In Defense of Neural Disenhancement to Promote Animal Welfare” in Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals, edited by Andrew Fenton, L. Syd M. Johnson, and Adam Shriver, pp. 135-150. Cham: Springer, 2020. “Keep Your Cats Indoors: A Reply to Abbate.” Acta Analytica 35.3 (2020): 463-468. “Quantifying the Valuation of Animal Welfare among Americans.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33 (2020): 261–282. (w/ Scott Weathers, Lindsay Jaacks, L. A. Scherer, Lucius Caviola, Jess Boardman Bump, and Stephan Pfister) “Rawls Goes to Church,” Theologica 4.1 (2020): 1-15. “Be a Professional: Attend to the Insects.” American Entomologist 65.3 (2019): 176-179. (w/ Emily Sandall) “Collecting Insects to Conserve Them: A Call for Ethical Caution.” Insect Conservation and Diversity 12 (2019): 173-182. (w/ Brendon Larson) “Don’t Demean ‘Invasives’: Conservation and Wrongful Species Discrimination.” Animals 9.11 (2019): 1-14 (w/ C. E. Abbate) 2 “How Lewis Can Meet the Integration Challenge.” Journal of Philosophical Research 44 (2019): 129-144. (w/ Eric Gilbertson) “How to Reply to Some Ethical Objections to Entomophagy.” Annals of the Entomological Society of America 112.6 (2019): 511-517. “Nonideal Ethics and Arguments against Eating Animals.” Environmental Values 28.4 (2019): 429-448. “In Defense of Backyard Chickens.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 36.1 (2019): 108-123. (w/ Josh Milburn) “Moral Bioenhancement Probably Won’t Improve Things for Animals (and May Make Them Worse).” Topoi 38 (2019):141-151. “The Problem with Person-rearing Accounts of Moral Status.” Thought 8 (2019): 119-128. (w/ Travis Timmerman) “Animal Rights and Incredulous Stares.” Between the Species 21.1 (2018): 216-231. “Animals as Honorary Humans” in Ethical Vegetarianism and Veganism, edited by Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey, pp. 51-61. New York: Routledge, 2018. “Arguments for Consuming Animal Products” in The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics, edited by Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, and Tyler Doggett, pp. 241-266. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. “C. I. Lewis and the Benacerraf Problem.” Episteme 15.2 (2018): 154-165. “Categorical Desires and the Badness of Animal Death.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 52 (2018): 97-111. (w/ Matt Bower) “Dignitarian Hunting: A Rights-based Defense.” Social Theory and Practice 44.1 (2018): 49- 73. (w/ Dan Demetriou) “Disassociation Intuitions.” Southwest Philosophy Review 34.1 (2018): 85-92. (w/ Isaac Wiegman) “Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31.4 (2018): 409-428. (w/ Andy Lamey) “Is Abolitionism Guilty of Racism? A Reply to Cordeiro-Rodrigues.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31.3 (2018): 295-306. “Speech and War: Rethinking the Ethics of Speech Restrictions.” The Value and Limits of Academic Speech: Philosophical, Political, and Legal Perspectives, ed. Donald Alexander Downs and Chris W. Surprenant, pp. 187-204. New York: Routledge, 2018. (w/ Burkay Ozturk) “Facsimiles of Flesh.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 34.4 (2017): 49-497. (w/ Burkay Ozturk) “Focus on Fish: A Call to Effective Altruists.” Essays in Philosophy 18.1 (2017): 1-23. (w/ Max Elder) “Modal Empiricism: Objection, Reply, Proposal” in Modal Epistemology After Rationalism (Synthese Library), edited by Bob Fischer and Felipe Leon, pp. 263-280. Cham: Springer, 2017. 3 “The Moral Objection to Modal Realism.” Erkenntnis 82.5 (2017): 1015-1030. “Wild Fish and Expected Utility.” Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 8.1 (2017): 1-6. “A Theory-based Epistemology of Modality.” The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46 (2016): 228-247. “Bugging the Strict Vegan.” Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 29.2 (2016): 255-263. “Disgust as Heuristic.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2016):679-693. “Hale on the Architecture of Modal Knowledge.” Analytic Philosophy 57.1 (2016): 76-89. “The Modal-Knowno Problem.” Southwest Philosophy Review 32.1 (2016): 225-232. (w/ Felipe Leon) “You Can’t Buy Your Way Out of Veganism.” Between the Species 19.1 (2016): 193-209. “Against Blaming the Blameworthy” in The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat, edited by Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer, pp. 185-198. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. “Theory Selection in Modal Epistemology.” American Philosophical Quarterly 52.3 (2015): 289-304. “Disgust and the Collection of Bovine Fetal Blood” in Animal Ethics and Philosophy: Questioning the Orthodoxy, edited by Elisa Aaltola and John Hadley, pp. 151-164. London: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2014. “Salvaging Serviceability in Metaphysics.” Southwest Philosophy Review 30.1 (2014): 105- 115. (w/ Eric Gilbertson) “Why It Doesn’t Matter Whether the Virtues Are Truth-Conducive.” Synthese 191 (2014): 1059-1073. “Modal Knowledge, in Theory.” Southwest Philosophy Review 28.1 (2012): 227-236. “Why Incest Is Usually Wrong.” Philosophy in the Contemporary World 18.2 (2012): 17-31. COMMENTS & REFERENCE “Comments on J. P. Andrew’s ‘The Insignificance of Taste’.” Southwest Philosophy Review, forthcoming. “Are Meat-Eaters Epistemically Unlucky?” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 9.9 (2020): 10-14. https://wp.me/p1Bfg0-5kC. “Just Policy Paralysis.” Animal Sentience 2019.282. (w/ Clare Palmer) “Individuals in the Wild.” Animal Sentience 2018.170. “Modal Epistemology.” 1000-Word Philosophy. December 5, 2017. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/modal-epistemology/ “What If Barron and Klein Are Right About Insect Sentience?” Animal Sentience 2016.115. “Meat: Ethical Considerations” in Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, edited by Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan, pp. 1365-1371. New York: Springer, 2014. BOOK REVIEWS 4 “Kenneth Asher’s Literature, Ethics, and the Emotions.” Philosophy in Review, forthcoming. “Kristin Andrews and Jacob Beck’s The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Animal Minds.” Metapsychology 22.22 (2018). “Nathan Nobis’s Animals & Ethics 101.” Between the Species 20.1 (2018): 2-5. “Chauncey Maher’s Plant Minds: A Philosophical Defense.” Metapsychology 21.39 (2017). “Chignell, Cuneo, and Halteman’s Philosophy Comes to Dinner.” The Philosophical Review 126.2 (2017): 295-300. “J. M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals.” Metapsychology 21.2 (2017). “Steven McMullen’s Animals and the Economy.” Between the Species 20.1 (2017): 153-158. “Ellen K. Silbergeld’s Chickenizing Farms & Food.” Metapsychology 20.51 (2016). “David Kaspar’s Intuitionism.” Philosophy in Review 34.1-2 (2014). “Lance Rips’ Lines of Thought: Central Concepts in Cognitive Psychology.” Philosophical Psychology 27:3 (2014): 445-449. “Timothy O’Connor’s Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency.” Faith and Philosophy 27.4 (2010): 236-238. “Louise Antony’s Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.” International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 66.2 (2009): 119-123. “Amy Thomasson’s Ordinary Objects.” Metaphilosophy 40.2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Redfame Publishing: E-Journals Studies in Media and Communication Vol. 7, No. 1; June 2019 ISSN: 2325-8071 E-ISSN: 2325-808X Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://smc.redfame.com Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics Núria Almiron1, Catia Faria2 1Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain 2Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade, ILCH, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal Correspondence: Núria Almiron, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain. Received: April 21, 2019 Accepted: May 21, 2019 Online Published: May 29, 2019 doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 Abstract The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism. Keywords: media ethics, egalitarianism, climate change, wildlife, anthropocentrism 1. Introduction Since evidence of climate change was brought to light by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, concerns regarding the issue have focused almost exclusively on preventing the harm humans suffer due to global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R
    THE PALGRAVE MACMILLAN ANIMAL ETHICS SERIES Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R. Valpey The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series Series Editors Andrew Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK Priscilla N. Cohn Pennsylvania State University Villanova, PA, USA Associate Editor Clair Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the ethics of our treatment of animals. Philosophers have led the way, and now a range of other scholars have followed from historians to social scientists. From being a marginal issue, animals have become an emerging issue in ethics and in multidisciplinary inquiry. Tis series will explore the challenges that Animal Ethics poses, both conceptually and practically, to traditional understandings of human-animal relations. Specifcally, the Series will: • provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out ethical positions on animals • publish pioneering work written by new, as well as accomplished, scholars; • produce texts from a variety of disciplines that are multidisciplinary in character or have multidisciplinary relevance. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14421 Kenneth R. Valpey Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R. Valpey Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Oxford, UK Te Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series ISBN 978-3-030-28407-7 ISBN 978-3-030-28408-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28408-4 © Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s) 2020. Tis book is an open access publication. Open Access Tis book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge
    1 Lands of the Lakota: Policy, Culture and Land Use on the Pine Ridge Reservation Joseph Stromberg Senior Honors Thesis Environmental Studies and Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis 2 Abstract Land is invested with tremendous historical and cultural significance for the Oglala Lakota Nation of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Widespread alienation from direct land use among tribal members also makes land a key element in exploring the roots of present-day problems—over two thirds of the reservation’s agricultural income goes to non-Natives, while the majority of households live below the poverty line. In order to understand how current patterns in land use are linked with federal policy and tribal culture, this study draws on three sources: (1) archival research on tribal history, especially in terms of territory loss, political transformation, ethnic division, economic coercion, and land use; (2) an account of contemporary problems on the reservation, with an analysis of current land policy and use pattern; and (3) primary qualitative ethnographic research conducted on the reservation with tribal members. Findings indicate that federal land policies act to effectively block direct land use. Tribal members have responded to policy in ways relative to the expression of cultural values, and the intent of policy has been undermined by a failure to fully understand the cultural context of the reservation. The discussion interprets land use through the themes of policy obstacles, forced incorporation into the world-system, and resistance via cultural sovereignty over land use decisions. Acknowledgements I would like to sincerely thank the Buder Center for American Indian Studies of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work as well as the Environmental Studies Program, for support in conducting research.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 29–40] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 Unnaturally Cruel: Rolston on Animals, Ethics, and the Factory Farm CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In 2010, over nine billion animals were killed in the United States for human consumption. This included nearly 1 million calves, 2.5 million sheep and lambs, 34 million cattle, 110 million hogs, 242 million turkeys, and well over 8.7 billion chickens (USDA 2011a; 2011b). Though hundreds of slaughterhouses actively contributed to these totals, more than half of the cattle just mentioned were killed at just fourteen plants. A slightly greater percentage of hogs was killed at only twelve (USDA 2011a). Chickens were processed in a total of three hundred and ten federally inspected facilities (USDA 2011b), which means that if every facility operated at the same capacity, each would have slaughtered over fifty-three birds per minute (nearly one per second) in every minute of every day, adding up to more than twenty-eight million apiece over the course of twelve months.1 Incredible as these figures may seem, 2010 was an average year for agricultural animals. Indeed, for nearly a decade now the total number of birds and mammals killed annually in the US has come in at or above the nine billion mark, and such enormous totals are possible only by virtue of the existence of an equally enormous network of industrialized agricultural suppliers. These high-volume farming operations – dubbed “factory farms” by the general public, or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)” by state and federal agencies – are defined by the ways in which they restrict animals’ movements and behaviors, locate more and more bodies in less and less space, and increasingly mechanize many aspects of traditional husbandry.
    [Show full text]
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE
    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
    [Show full text]
  • Pueblo County Taxsale Advertising
    Pueblo County Taxsale Advertising Date 10/04/2021 Page 1 1 420406001 313.66 * # LOT 17 SUNSET MEADOWS PUEBLO HOME DEV CO LLC COMM FROM THE NW COR OF 17 331004012 444.96 * C/O BARBARA O CONNELL THE INTERSECTION OF MARTINEZ BRIAN S S2 7-20-64 48.36A S2 OF SEC 7-20- WALKING STICK BLVD AND EI RIVERA ALAN J/RIVERA LANCE -64 E OF D+RGW RR + W2SE4 N PRINCIPIO DRIVE, SAID PT ALSO 35 DICK TREFZ ST OF 47TH ST + W OF UNIVERSITY BEING THE ELY COR OF PAR K LOT 3 BLK 40 BELMONT 26TH 31891 ALDRED RD PARK 18TH FILING ALSO LESS ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED 2 420406001 1,015.45 * E 155.1 FT OF S 112.25 FT LOT 12 NW4NW4SW4 10A (296.40A) LESS PLAT OF NORTH VISTA CAULIFLOWER GARDENS 13.5A ABANDONED RR + RD HIGHLANDS, FLING NO. 1 FILED AMENDED CONTG .40A LESS 5A #599466 LESS 5A #396406 NOVEMBER 15, 2019 AT RIVERA ALAN J/RIVERA LANCE 18 331004016 509.99 * LESS 1.5A #411120 LESS 1.5A RECEPTION NO. 2159276; TH N. 35 DICK TREFZ ST #398118 LESS .01A #553603 TO 75°32'15" W., A DIST OF 2,074.11 LOT 3 BLK 40 BELMONT 26TH CITY LESS 30.29A #559536 TO FT TO THE PT OF BEG; TH S. 3 420406001 1,268.55 * BOTTS CLINTON S OTERO 6TH FILING LESS 10.112A 48°32'22" E, A DIST OF 698.55 FT; 31932 ALDRED RD #577004 TO OTERO 7TH FILING TH SELY ALONG THE ARC OF A E 110 FT OF N 100 FT + W 110 FT E LESS 15.515A #579206 TO OTERO CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE RIVERA ALAN J/RIVERA LANCE 130 FT OF S 100 FT OF N 200 FT 8TH FILING LESS 1.75A #577214 RADIUS IS 720.00 FT,.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Animals Conference Co-Organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N
    Living with Animals Conference Co-organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N. Makecha, & Michał Piotr Pręgowski Eastern Kentucky University, 19-21 March 2015 Cover design: Kasey L. Morris Conference overview Each day begins with a keynote speaker, and follows with two tracks (in separate locations) that will run concurrently. Breakfast foods and coffee/tea/water will be available prior to the morning keynotes. Coffee breaks (i.e., snacks and coffee/tea/water) are scheduled between sequential groups of talks. Thus, for example, if one session is from 9:05-10:15, and the next session is 10:40-11:40, there is a coffee break from 10:15-10:40. Drinks and edibles should be visible at or near the entry to the rooms where talks are held. Book display: Throughout the conference in Library Room 201, there is a book display. Several university presses have generously provided books for your perusal (as well as order sheets), and some conference participants will be displaying their books as well. Thursday features the “Living with Horses” sessions, as well as concurrent sessions, and has an optional (pre-paid) trip to Berea for shopping and dinner at the Historic Boone Tavern Restaurant. Friday features the “Teaching with Animals” sessions throughout the morning and early afternoon (which includes a boxed lunch during panel discussions and a movie showing and discussion); “Living with Animals” sessions continuing in the late afternoon, and a Conference Dinner at Masala Indian restaurant. Saturday includes “Living with Animals” sessions throughout the day and Poster Presentations during a buffet lunch. In addition, there is the optional trip to the White Hall State Historic Site (you pay when you arrive at the site).
    [Show full text]
  • Illuminating the Past
    Published by PhotoBook Press 2836 Lyndale Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55408 Designed at the School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 216 Lenoir Drive CB#3360, 100 Manning Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is committed to equality of educational opportunity. The University does not discriminate in o fering access to its educational programs and activities on the basis of age, gender, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, disability, veteran’s status or sexual orientation. The Dean of Students (01 Steele Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5100 or 919.966.4042) has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the University’s non-discrimination policies. © 2007 Illuminating the Past A history of the first 75 years of the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science Illuminating the past, imagining the future! Dear Friends, Welcome to this beautiful memory book for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science (SILS). As part of our commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the School, the words and photographs in these pages will give you engaging views of the rich history we share. These are memories that do indeed illuminate our past and chal- lenge us to imagine a vital and innovative future. In the 1930’s when SILS began, the United States had fallen from being the land of opportunity to a country focused on eco- nomic survival. The income of the average American family had fallen by 40%, unemployment was at 25% and it was a perilous time for public education, with most communities struggling to afford teachers and textbooks for their children.
    [Show full text]
  • What a Jew Should Do
    I If You Really Care About Animals, You Need to Read The ANIMALS' AGENDA WHAT A JEW SHOULD DO Roberta Kalechofsky Kalechofsky Jews for Jesus Jesus Editors' Note: This article is a response to an article by Sidney Gendin, "What Should a Jew Do?", published in Between the Species, To say you love animals is one vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-32. thing, but it's important to know what you're talking about if you're really going to do something to help them. idney Gendin's review of Richard Schwartz's Covering a range of issues from fac­ book, Judaism and Vegetarianism and of tory farming to Native trapping, § Rabbi Bleich's article in Animal Sacrifices: from endangered species to com­ panion animals, we have been a Religious Perspectives on the Use ofAnimals in Science is valuable resource for nine years. We premised on the mistaken idea that what separates are your best connection with the Richard Schwartz's involvement in vegetarianism people and events that are making and animal rights from Rabbi Bleich's apparent animal rights one of the major movements of the twentieth century. indifference to them is that the former represents the Reform position in Judaism while the latter ~~~~ represents the Orthodox posture. &®rn~A To begin with, Richard Schwartz himself is not a The International Magazine Reform Jew. Though he eschews labels like of Animal Rights & Ecology '-------------­'-------------- "Orthodox" or "Conservative" and prefers to call ~ himself simply "committed," the congregation he ' I want to subscribe to ~ belongs to is Orthodox, and his practice would be • The ANIMALS' AGENDA.
    [Show full text]