On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>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.

You can't comprehend what it means even to yourself, much less to me.

>This is not a mental handicap.

It is a severe mental handicap if you're really as restricted as you claim,
and it's also a severe mental handicap if you're not really that restricted but
are lying about it.

>It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to come to
>based on what you have written.
>
>I have lectured university students about animal ethics, yes.

They knew more about it than you ever will, IF it really happened. Grade
school children know more about it than you do.

>> >"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.

To the truly non-speciesist, species wouldn't matter. DUH!!!