On Apr 18, 1:30*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 1:36 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:08 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 17, 12:42 am, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:39:22 -0400, 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...?
>
> >>>>>> * * * *You sure don't know anything worthwhile about this topic either Rupert,
> >>>>>> since again you can't handle the basics.
>
> >>>>> Actually you're wrong about that, but on the other hand if that is
> >>>>> what you think then it becomes a bit unclear what would motivate you
> >>>>> to talk to me about it.
>
> >>>> You two are both time-wasters with low time value. *It's natural you'd
> >>>> both want to **** around and waste one another's time.
>
> >>> I fail to see how you figure that your time is so much more valuable
> >>> than everyone else's round here.
>
> >> Not everyone's, Woopert - but yours and ****wit's, for certain.
>
> > And how did you come to that conclusion?
>
> Once again, you reveal your low time value.

As I've just mentioned, you reveal your low time value in the other
part of the thread, where you make a claim, say that you don't want to
waste your time substantiating the claim, and yet waste just as much
time engaging in a childish "No, I didn't"; "Yes, you did" exchange.

My posts do not indicate my low time value to any greater extent than
yours indicate your low time value.