4b3fae84   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   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, notgen...@yahoo.com 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...?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)