On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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."
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>>>> spurious.
>>
>>>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>>>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>>
>>> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
>>> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
>>> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
>>> own species and against those of members of other species.
>>
>> That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
>> truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
>> rejects it as a word.
>>
>
> Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
> between themselves and other beings.

Really! How...insightful <chortle>.

> This observation alone hardly
> justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> proposals and justifications.

Uhh...er...okay.


>
> Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

Do what thing, ****tard?


>>
>>
>>> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
>>> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
>>> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
>>> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
>>> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>>
>>> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
>>> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
>>> status.
>>
>>> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
>>> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
>>> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
>>> higher moral status.
>>
>>> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
>>> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
>>> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
>>> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
>>> non-human animals.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
>>
>> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
>> commentary of your own. What the **** for?
>
> You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
> reasons for your theory.

No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic ****wit. I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.