On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, 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.
>>
>> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>> . . .
>>
>> >The passivists 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.
>>
>> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
>That does not follow.

That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
everything...?