On Apr 17, 4:07*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
> >> 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...?
>
> > Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
> > of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>
> Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
> as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
> essentially, flip a coin.
>
> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
> <snicker> if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> consideration as rescuing the child.

No, it doesn't.

I told you you didn't understand what speciesism is.

> That's why it's bullshit. *It is
> *OBVIOUS* to all right-thinking people that the child must be rescued.
> It's something we all know intuitively is right.