XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals
XPost: alt.politics
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, 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...?
You sure don't know anything worthwhile about this topic either Rupert,
since again you can't handle the basics.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
