"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
"Neon" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>> >>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>> >>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>
>> >>>> No reason at all.
>>
>> >>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>> >>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>> >>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>> >>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>> >>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>> >>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>> >>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
>>
>> >> They never will, because its impossible.
>>
>> > I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
>> > However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove,
>> > that
>> > does nothing at all to advance the cause.
>>
>> Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
>> life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective,
>> say
>> by size, and that itself is already speciesist.
>
> Do animals object to the immorality of human kind? and I really did
> think when
> reading that post that comments like 'the evironment is thick with
> animal
> life' is tantamount to saying that the person ho wrote it simply has
> lost sensitivity
> and crucial understanding between living things. Lots of women are
> often accused
> of not being able to make up her mind! There are lots of small
> irrelevent differences
> between people who do consider themselves 'racially pure' wouldn't you
> agree it
> seems to be that if they didn't mix their genes up sometimes then one
> disease
> or virus could kill all members of the same 'preferential variety'
> very soon. Those
> tiny differences do matter, but it would be inexact to call them
> racial.
I have no idea what you just said.
|