"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. The "ar" passivists
cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
"speciesist."

Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
*why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.

That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
*demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
those in the advantaged group.

The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
spurious.

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. Forget about "marginal cases"
- that doesn't achieve anything.

On Apr 8, 7:06*pm, 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.

Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

> The "ar" passivists
> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>

It's not. Any moral theory at all will restrict the set of individuals
who have moral obligations to the class of moral agents. And also,
just about any moral theory that anyone accepts requires us to give
*some* consideration to the interests of nonhuman animals.

> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>

There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to any greater degree
than nonhuman animals. These humans have the same morally relevant
characteristics as nonhuman animals. It is failing to give nonhuman
animals the same level of consideration that we think is due to these
humans that constitutes "speciesism".

> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> those in the advantaged group.
>
> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> spurious.
>
> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> - that doesn't achieve anything.

Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics. If
you want to claim that your interests should be given more weight than
those of another group because your group is "special", the burden is
on you to explain why.

On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.

The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.


>> The "ar" passivists
>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>> "speciesist."
>>
>
> It's not.

It is.


>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>
> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to

"marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.


>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>> spurious.
>>
>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.

No.

On Apr 9, 6:44*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> > Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> > other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> > use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>
> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> members.
>
> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>

No, they are not. To say that moral agents have moral duties towards
those who are not moral agents is not speciesist.

> >> The "ar" passivists
> >> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >> "speciesist."
>
> > It's not.
>
> It is.
>

You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

> >> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> > There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> > participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>
> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.
>

Why not?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> >> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> >> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> >> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> >> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> >> those in the advantaged group.
>
> >> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> >> spurious.
>
> >> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> >> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> > Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.
>
> No.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>
> Why not?

You know why not.

On 4/9/2012 12:53 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>
> You know why not.

He does indeed know why not. He knows that it's sophistry to begin
with, and he knows exactly why.

On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>>
>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>>
>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
>> members.
>>
>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>>
>
> No, they are not.

Yes, they are. You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
to their species. That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)


>>>> The "ar" passivists
>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>>>> "speciesist."
>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>
> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

I do understand full well what it is. In fact, it's sophistry.


>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
>>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>>
>> "marginal cases" doesn't work. It's useless.
>>
>
> Why not?

I've explained that to you before, too. The argument from species
normality defeats it, among other things.

On Apr 9, 4:31*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> >>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> >>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> >>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>
> >> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
> >> members.
>
> >> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
> >> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>
> > No, they are not.
>
> Yes, they are. *You are requiring humans to behave a particular way due
> to their species. *That's "speciesism" (an ugly, contrived word, in fact
> not even a real word at all, as every spell-checker in existence
> demonstrates by flagging it as not a word.)
>

No, they're not requiring that humans behave a particular way due to
their species. Saying that only moral agents have moral obligations is
not speciesism.

> >>>> The "ar" passivists
> >>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >>>> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >>>> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >>>> "speciesist."
>
> >>> It's not.
>
> >> It is.
>
> > You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.
>
> I do understand full well what it is. *In fact, it's sophistry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >>>> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >>>> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> >>> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> >>> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to
>
> >> "marginal cases" doesn't work. *It's useless.
>
> > Why not?
>
> I've explained that to you before, too. *The argument from species
> normality defeats it, among other things.

The argument from species normality is flawed. There are many cogent
objections to it.

On 4/8/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:44 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>>
>>> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
>>> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
>>> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.
>>
>> No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
>> members.
>>
>> The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
>> on it to say that humans should not engage in it.
>>
>
> No, they are not.

They are.

>
>>>> The "ar" passivists
>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>>>> "speciesist."
>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>
> You obviously don't understand what speciesism is.

I do - far better than you, wobbler.

On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> other species, and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

No other species show *moral* concern for interests of other species'
members.

The point of the post is that those who decry "speciesism" are relying
on it to say that humans should not engage in it.

On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, 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.
>
> Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> other species,

Bullshit.


> and in any case there is no good reason why we should
> use the behaviour of nonhuman animals as a moral guide.

So, you *are* a speciesist, just as I said. You hold humans to a
different moral standard. You view humans as morally superior to other
species, based solely on a trait they uniquely possess.

>> The "ar" passivists
>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>> "speciesist."
>>
>
> It's not.

It is, of course.

>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>
> There are plenty of intellectually disabled humans who cannot
> participate in the moral comunnity of humanity to any greater degree
> than nonhuman animals.

But they are of the *kind* of entity that *uniquely* can participate in
a moral community. No non-human animals can. The overwhelming majority
of humans can.

As has been shown countless times, your "marginal cases" garbage fails.
It *never* leads to the extension of greater moral consideration to dumb
non-human animals; all it *ever* leads to is a diminution of
consideration for the human marginal cases.

You and Singer want to perform horrific medical experiments on them.


>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>> spurious.
>>
>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> Equality of interests is the default starting position in ethics.

No.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news
> On 4/8/2012 9:00 PM, Rupert wrote:

> > Some nonhuman animals do show concern for the interests of members of
> > other species,

> Bullshit.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10...n-orig-llr.cnn

In article >, notgenx32
@yahoo.com says...
> Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>
>

great assumption given this idea of 'only humans are capable of...' has
been specifically defeated more than once. Some examples being abstract
thought, tool making, altruistic behavior and grief.

Given ...

> the members of all species pursue their
> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species,

then the "Animal rights activists" are not in violation.

> 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.

Read: "The passivists cannot make a case that I will hear or accept".

For instance, the case was made thousands of years ago on the moral
weight, as you call it, of all life. You may not agree with any of this
but you also can not make it out to be a fringe element or unsupported
principle in human belief and hope to keep your position within reason.

On 4/9/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In article<yt6dnYnAlbcGWBzSnZ2dnUVZ5jednZ2d@giganews. com>, notgenx32
> @yahoo.com says...
>> Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>> "speciesist."
>>
>>
>
> great assumption given this idea of 'only humans are capable of...' has
> been specifically defeated more than once. Some examples being abstract
> thought, tool making, altruistic behavior and grief.

It hasn't been defeated when it comes to moral agency. Only humans are
moral agents. In particular, only humans are capable of demonstrating
moral consideration for members of other species.


> Given ...
>
>> the members of all species pursue their
>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species,
>
> then the "Animal rights activists" are not in violation.

"In violation" of what? What I said is that the "ar" criticism of
so-called "speciesism" is incoherent, in no small part because it relies
on it itself.


>
>> 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.
>
> Read: "The passivists cannot make a case that I will hear or accept".

They haven't made a case. They take as an assumption the very thing
they must show, so they fail.

On Apr 8, 5:06*pm, 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. *The "ar" passivists
> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>
This reminds me of a few years ago when Greenpeace were trying to stop
whaling because the numbers were so close to extinction, and a female
whale
was hauled up in the carcass was a 'chimera' a baby fetus that was a
cross
between two species that during normal evolution should not have
occurred.
The oceanographers figured that while the females pod was almost dead
or
population so sparce that she had been adopted into another herd and
had
managed to conceive. If the babycalf had survived it perhaps would
have begun
a newer cross species.

> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
where evolution of 'species' is on the agenda, of course sex is
relevent!
heterosexual sex within communities!

> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> those in the advantaged group.
>
Did you have the name or identity of an article? or a name of a person
who
as you say " is able to say, himself," ? and if not why not and if
there is
racist bias or sexual perversion then who is the spokesperson ?

> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> spurious.
>
> The passivists

by 'passivists' you refer to evolutionary enthusiasts & experts, any
animal rights activists or 'subnormal & alien species protection
activists'?

> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> - that doesn't achieve anything.

Are animals of different sex morally oblivious that they could cause
offenses to men?

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.

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.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
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...?

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:39:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>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.

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), Rupert >
> >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.

On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> 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.

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. 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.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> 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.

Sure it does. Why would you even want to pretend otherwise, when you should
be proud that it IS that way?

Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?

No reason at all.

On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>
> No reason at all.

The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

"George Plimpton" > wrote
> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>
>> No reason at all.
>
> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
> it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.

They never will, because its impossible.

On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>>
>>> No reason at all.
>>
>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
>
> They never will, because its impossible.

I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.

"George Plimpton" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>>> On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
>>>> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>>>>
>>>> No reason at all.
>>>
>>> The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
>>> basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and
>>> so it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
>>> animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
>>> demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
>>> "ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
>>> consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.
>>
>> They never will, because its impossible.
>
> I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
> does nothing at all to advance the cause.

Its physically impossible, the environment around us is thick with animal
life. The only way to begin to extend consideration is to be selective, say
by size, and that itself is already speciesist.

I am convinced that both the notion of rights, and a *conscious* sense
of consideration of others' interests, are products of human evolution
that had the effect of ensuring the survival of the species. As such,
there is no valid philosophical reason either one *ought* to be extended
to animals. As both evolved as part of our - humans' - survival
"strategy", there is no compelling philosophical reason to extend them
to animals, *unless* doing so would enhance our survival. I don't
believe a compelling case can be made for either one - neither seeing
animals as rights holders, nor giving their interests equal
consideration to ours, would do a thing to enhance either the
probability or the quality of continued human existence.

Humans, except for marginal cases themselves, feel sorrow when
contemplating a marginal case. If a friend or family member experiences
a trauma or illness that puts him permanently into a vegetative state or
another severely diminished capacity, humans feel terrible about it, and
the feeling doesn't go away.

No one looks at or in any way contemplates pigs and feels bad that they
can't read or do arithmetic, can't appreciate classical music, can't
tell or understand jokes. It doesn't mean anything - no moral or
philosophical or emotional dimension to it at all. There *is* a moral
and philosophical and especially an emotional dimension to our awareness
that marginal humans cannot fully participate in human society and
culture. We feel there is something *wrong*, something *bad*, if humans
suffer from a diminished capacity that prevents them from participating
fully in the human community, but we don't feel anything at all like
that about *all* non-human animals lacking that capacity; nor *should*
we feel the same way about animals lacking that capacity. Their
diminished capacity, relative to ours, has no meaning for any of them,
and there is no reason for it to have any meaning for us, so it has no
meaning.

The contrast between our innate sense of compassion for marginal or
diminished-capacity humans, and our utter lack of compassion or sorrow
over animals' similar lack of capacity, illustrates why the AMC fails.
A normal pig's lack of normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity
elicits no feelings in us at all, nor should it; a human who permanently
lacks normal human mental, emotional and moral capacity is seen as a
tragedy, and it is *right* that he is seen as such.

On Apr 8, 10:06*am, 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. *The "ar" passivists
> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> "speciesist."
>
> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> those in the advantaged group.
>
> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> spurious.
>
> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> - that doesn't achieve anything.

Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
own species and against those of members of other species.

Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.

Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
status.

They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
higher moral status.

But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
non-human animals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml

On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. The "ar" passivists
>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>> "speciesist."
>>
>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>> spurious.
>>
>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
> own species and against those of members of other species.

That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
rejects it as a word.


> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> status.
>
> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> higher moral status.
>
> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> non-human animals.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml

So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
commentary of your own. What the **** for?

On Apr 12, 8:43*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. *The "ar" passivists
> >> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >> "speciesist."
>
> >> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> >> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> >> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> >> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> >> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> >> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> >> those in the advantaged group.
>
> >> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> >> spurious.
>
> >> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> >> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> > Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
> > human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
> > is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
> > own species and against those of members of other species.
>
> That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. *It's
> truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
> rejects it as a word.
>

Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
between themselves and other beings. This observation alone hardly
justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
proposals and justifications.

Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

>
>
>
>
> > Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> > of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> > vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> > argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> > provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> > Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> > humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> > status.
>
> > They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> > choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> > enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> > higher moral status.
>
> > But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> > human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> > since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> > being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> > non-human animals.
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
>
> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
> commentary of your own. *What the **** for?

You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
reasons for your theory.

On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. The "ar" passivists
>>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
>>>> by invoking it themselves. Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
>>>> interests of members of other species. To say that we /must/ is itself
>>>> "speciesist."
>>
>>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
>>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
>>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
>>>> etc. This comparison is cynical and dishonest. First, a discussion of
>>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
>>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
>>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
>>>> are doing the discriminating. A person's race or sex has no bearing on
>>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>>
>>>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. The
>>>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
>>>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
>>>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
>>>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
>>>> those in the advantaged group.
>>
>>>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
>>>> spurious.
>>
>>>> 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. Forget about "marginal cases"
>>>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>>
>>> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
>>> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
>>> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
>>> own species and against those of members of other species.
>>
>> That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. It's
>> truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
>> rejects it as a word.
>>
>
> Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
> between themselves and other beings.

Really! How...insightful <chortle>.

> This observation alone hardly
> justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> proposals and justifications.

Uhh...er...okay.


>
> Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.

Do what thing, ****tard?


>>
>>
>>> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
>>> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
>>> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
>>> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
>>> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>>
>>> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
>>> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
>>> status.
>>
>>> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
>>> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
>>> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
>>> higher moral status.
>>
>>> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
>>> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
>>> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
>>> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
>>> non-human animals.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
>>
>> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
>> commentary of your own. What the **** for?
>
> You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
> reasons for your theory.

No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
pedantic ****wit. I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
very interesting or helpful.

On Apr 12, 9:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 9:14 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 8:43 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 8:21 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, 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. *The "ar" passivists
> >>>> cannot give a coherent explanation of why "speciesism" is wrong, except
> >>>> by invoking it themselves. *Only humans are capable of conceiving of the
> >>>> interests of members of other species. *To say that we /must/ is itself
> >>>> "speciesist."
>
> >>>> Secondly, the only way the passivists attempt to show that it's wrong is
> >>>> by comparison with other "isms" that they claim, without explanation,
> >>>> are inherently and "obviously" wrong: *racism, sexism, "heterosexism",
> >>>> etc. *This comparison is cynical and dishonest. *First, a discussion of
> >>>> *why* racism and sexism are (or might be) wrong quickly reveals that
> >>>> they comprise negative thoughts and actions against people of the same
> >>>> species who share the same morally relevant characteristics as those who
> >>>> are doing the discriminating. *A person's race or sex has no bearing on
> >>>> his ability to participate in the moral community of humanity.
>
> >>>> That leads to the second criticism of the passivists' comparison. *The
> >>>> member of a disadvantaged group was and is able to say, himself, that
> >>>> his treatment at the hands of the advantaged group's members is based on
> >>>> irrelevant considerations and is therefore wrong - he is able to
> >>>> *demonstrate* that he is and ought to be seen as the moral equal of
> >>>> those in the advantaged group.
>
> >>>> The analogy with racism and sexism and other wholly *human* "isms" is
> >>>> spurious.
>
> >>>> 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. *Forget about "marginal cases"
> >>>> - that doesn't achieve anything.
>
> >>> Speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for
> >>> human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. It
> >>> is a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one's
> >>> own species and against those of members of other species.
>
> >> That's the revolting neologism given as a name for that belief. *It's
> >> truly a disgusting word, so much so that every spell-checker I've seen
> >> rejects it as a word.
>
> > Some humans observe that there are a number of apparent differences
> > between themselves and other beings.
>
> Really! *How...insightful <chortle>.
>

Yes, kinda like Descartes argument "I think therefore I exist" except
here the argument is "there are differences between beings therefore
different beings should be treated differently."

> > This observation alone hardly
> > justifies any actions involving beings unless combined with other
> > proposals and justifications.
>
> Uhh...er...okay.
>
>
>
> > Your theory of the revoltingness doesn't do the thing either idiot.
>
> Do what thing, ****tard?
>

The 'do the thing' phrase in my response referred to any attempt to
justify behavior that would be identical to either treating different
beings differently or treating different beings the same. In either
case we would need additional reasons to justify the longstanding
traditions of the way beings have treated or are treated by other
beings. It will do no good to appeal to tradition or evolution as ways
to justify the preponderance of a range of and the prescription of any
treatments. This will not be allowed since it is analogous to claiming
the 2+2=4 not because of any theories of addition and sums but simply
because thats what 2+2 always equalled traditionally.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Pure speciesism carries the idea of human superiority to the extreme
> >>> of saying that the most trivial human wish is more important that the
> >>> vital needs of other species... for example a pure speciesist would
> >>> argue that it's ok for animals to be cruelly treated and killed to
> >>> provide fur decorations for human beings to wear.
>
> >>> Supporters of speciesism say that there is a clear difference between
> >>> humans and other species, and that this difference affects their moral
> >>> status.
>
> >>> They argue that human beings are more self-aware, and more able to
> >>> choose their own course of action than other animals. This, they say,
> >>> enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a
> >>> higher moral status.
>
> >>> But the argument that there are morally relevant differences between
> >>> human animals and non-human animals is not a speciesist argument,
> >>> since the argument is about the particular characteristics that are
> >>> being put forward to justify the different moral status of human and
> >>> non-human animals.
>
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...eciesism.shtml
>
> >> So, you tiresomely copied and pasted this boilerplate without adding any
> >> commentary of your own. *What the **** for?
>
> > You are proposing that only commentary is allowable, please give
> > reasons for your theory.
>
> No, I'm not proposing that only commentary is allowable, you tendentious
> pedantic ****wit. *I'm saying that only doing slavish copypasta isn't
> very interesting or helpful.

Are you requesting that the topic be changed to the interesting and
helpful or is this another red herring fallacious distration where an
irrelevant issue is introduced to take attention away from you weak
arguing abilities?