17998dc9   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Apr 24, 7:27 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >On Apr 18, 5:58 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >On Apr 17, 11:19 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> 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, 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.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     Sure it does. Why would you even want to  pretend otherwise, when   
   you should   
   >> >> >> be proud that it IS that way?   
   >>   
   >> >> >It doesn't.   
   >>   
   >> >>     Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to   
   believe   
   >> >> it means?   
   >>   
   >> >It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms   
   >> >should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant   
   >> >considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms   
   >> >belong.   
   >>   
   >> >The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and   
   >> >fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant   
   >>   
   >>     So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being   
   >> speciesist. Worse actually, imo.   
   >   
   >You have not offered any rational grounds for these assertions.   
      
       It is worse to be opportunitiesist than it is to be speciesist imo, not   
   better.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)