On 4/18/2012 8:59 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:54:49 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 17, 11:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:52 -0700, 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 -
>>>
>>> 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

You can't give it any meaning, because you're lying about it. What
"lives of possitive [sic] value" means, to you, is existence. You want
livestock animals to exist, for your use, and *purely* for your use.
You don't care about the quality of their lives.