On Apr 8, 5:06*pm, wrote:
> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> no regard for the interests of other species. *The "ar" passivists
> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>
This reminds me of a few years ago when Greenpeace were trying to stop
whaling because the numbers were so close to extinction, and a female
whale
was hauled up in the carcass was a 'chimera' a baby fetus that was a
cross
between two species that during normal evolution should not have
occurred.
The oceanographers figured that while the females pod was almost dead
or
population so sparce that she had been adopted into another herd and
had
managed to conceive. If the babycalf had survived it perhaps would
have begun
a newer cross species.

> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
where evolution of 'species' is on the agenda, of course sex is
relevent!
heterosexual sex within communities!

> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> those in the advantaged group.
>
Did you have the name or identity of an article? or a name of a person
who
as you say " is able to say, himself," ? and if not why not and if
there is
racist bias or sexual perversion then who is the spokesperson ?

> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> spurious.
>
> The passivists

by 'passivists' you refer to evolutionary enthusiasts & experts, any
animal rights activists or 'subnormal & alien species protection
activists'?

> cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> interests of members of our own species. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> - that doesn't achieve anything.

Are animals of different sex morally oblivious that they could cause
offenses to men?