On Apr 18, 1:30*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > * *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.
>
> >> It does.
>
> > As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.
>
> I do understand exactly what it is.

Wrong. What you write clearly reveals that you have no understanding
of the concept.