On 4/12/2012 10:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 12, 9:53 am, George > wrote:
>> 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>.
>>
>
> Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
> here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
> different beings should be treated differently."
>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
> justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
> beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
> case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
> traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
> beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
> to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
> treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
> the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
> because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.

Crikey, you are one long-winded wheezy *******, aren't you?

In fact, I don't appeal to tradition to justify humans considering
animals' interests differently from how they consider humans' interests.
What I *do* say is that given that humans overwhelmingly *do* give
differential consideration to humans' and animals' interests, and given
that this is based on at least a moral intuition on humans' part that
the difference is morally warranted, it simply isn't going to do for a
challenger position such as Woopert's and Singer's to try to shift the
burden.


>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
> helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
> irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
> arguing abilities?

It's neither - it's just a well-aimed criticism of you as a wheezy
tendentious pedant.