XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   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), 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...?   
   >>   
   >> 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   
   > 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.   
      
   >"non-speciesism" (fuck, 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)