On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, 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 -
>
> * * How could a guy who doesn't "believe the distinction between lives of
> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything, possibly think
> about such an issue in any sort of realistic detail? A mental handicap like that
> would necessarily prevent him from being able to think about it, though he may
> dishonestly claim to have lectured college students on that subject even though
> they know more about than he ever will. A student going into animal research
> certainly has a much better understanding about such values of life than a
> person who is as mentally restricted as Rupert claims to be.
>

I believe that you have not adequately defined the distinction between
lives of positive value and lives of negative value. This is not a
mental handicap. It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to
based on what you have written.

I have lectured university students about animal ethics, yes.

> >"non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> >disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> >consideration as rescuing the child. * 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.
>
> * * Only if we're speciesist, which decent *people are because it's good to be
> speciesist.

The non-speciesists can agree as well.