"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On Apr 10, 7:26*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Neon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:14 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
>
> om...
>
> >> > 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.
you answer correctly !
|