On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> 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...?
>
>Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
>of a snake as about the death of a human child.

Sure it does. Why would you even want to pretend otherwise, when you should
be proud that it IS that way?