"Speciesism" - nothing wrong with it
On 4/18/2012 6:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:30 am, George > 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.
Nope; I'm right.
|