Obama's Anti-Speciesists In Charge

[PoliticalChic]

Cuss words threaten your sensibilities. Direct confrontation of your erroneous and fallacious points cause you to respond with insult because you can't honestly reflect on your own position. There are two words that would characterize this Behavior: Immature Charlatan. Not a flattering combination, but potent for spewing nonsense, as you do. Both you and Coulter fit this characterization nicely, although as ripe as you with confirmation bias, youll probably take that as a complement.

I've already pointed out that the OP is basically one big ad hominem fallacy, either that, or you haven't really reached any actual conclusions, but simply use these posts to air your personal laundry. You might want to go study philosophy in order to learn how to escape the problem of solipsism, which you seem to be trapped in, manifesting itself as pathological narcissism. Stop thinking your smarter than all liberals. You are not. Yours is an easily defensible position, because you stick to the party line. You mistake this ease as a testament to your positions veracity. That's a fallacy. It's the opposite, that which is easily arrived at is probably wrong. The best example of probably god, but that is an aside.

Why do I bother dealing with your putrid ignorance? Because I believe it is people like you whose this world a worse place, spewing poison and logical fallacy under the guise of slick rhetoric to feed your own ego. It is this kind of filth that polluted the airwaves and tv screens, and idiots like you actually see it as admirable. I'm not sure what went wrong in your development, but perhaps some introspection might be in order.

I await your petty insults.

Just between us, how many times a day do you say "why am I so lonely?"

 

[newpolitics]

Cuss words threaten your sensibilities. Direct confrontation of your erroneous and fallacious points cause you to respond with insult because you can't honestly reflect on your own position. There are two words that would characterize this Behavior: Immature Charlatan. Not a flattering combination, but potent for spewing nonsense, as you do. Both you and Coulter fit this characterization nicely, although as ripe as you with confirmation bias, youll probably take that as a complement.

I've already pointed out that the OP is basically one big ad hominem fallacy, either that, or you haven't really reached any actual conclusions, but simply use these posts to air your personal laundry. You might want to go study philosophy in order to learn how to escape the problem of solipsism, which you seem to be trapped in, manifesting itself as pathological narcissism. Stop thinking your smarter than all liberals. You are not. Yours is an easily defensible position, because you stick to the party line. You mistake this ease as a testament to your positions veracity. That's a fallacy. It's the opposite, that which is easily arrived at is probably wrong. The best example of probably god, but that is an aside.

Why do I bother dealing with your putrid ignorance? Because I believe it is people like you whose this world a worse place, spewing poison and logical fallacy under the guise of slick rhetoric to feed your own ego. It is this kind of filth that polluted the airwaves and tv screens, and idiots like you actually see it as admirable. I'm not sure what went wrong in your development, but perhaps some introspection might be in order.

I await your petty insults.

Just between us, how many times a day do you say "why am I so lonely?"

As predicted. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[newpolitics]

Btw, I'm guessing you didn't watch Earthlings because you are too scared of finding out that the way animals are treated is in fact wrong. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals, and until you can demonstrate this rationally without bias, it's just another biased, speciesist contention. How hypocritical that you attack Peters more extreme views yet don't support your own speciesist contentions. Looks like you are just trying to debase his character so as to make speciesism viable, this of course being an ad hominem fallacy. Try not to do this? I don't know.

"Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals..."

In your case....true.

Demonstrate how humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals, either with evidence or a sound and valid syllogism. And Keep the insults to a minimum, will you? It's about time someone put your ass to the fire. You get away with too much around here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Btw, I'm guessing you didn't watch Earthlings because you are too scared of finding out that the way animals are treated is in fact wrong. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals, and until you can demonstrate this rationally without bias, it's just another biased, speciesist contention. How hypocritical that you attack Peters more extreme views yet don't support your own speciesist contentions. Looks like you are just trying to debase his character so as to make speciesism viable, this of course being an ad hominem fallacy. Try not to do this? I don't know.

"Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals..."

In your case....true.

Demonstrate how humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals, either with evidence or a sound and valid syllogism. And Keep the insults to a minimum, will you? It's about time someone put your ass to the fire. You get away with too much around here.

There is no doubt: You're dumb enough to rape a beehive.

 

[newpolitics]

"Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than animals..."

In your case....true.

Demonstrate how humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals, either with evidence or a sound and valid syllogism. And Keep the insults to a minimum, will you? It's about time someone put your ass to the fire. You get away with too much around here.

There is no doubt: You're dumb enough to rape a beehive.

I didn't expect you to fall apart so quickly. You have no rational justification for your speciesism, which means you are paradoxically vindicating Singer while attempting to admonish him, and you predictably resort to insult. It is simple. When pressed for logical justification of your beliefs, you hide behind rhetoric and insult. You are immature and so enamored with your own intelligence, that you fail to see your own flaws. This is the epitome of vanity and pride. The further irony is that you are a Christian, which means you are instructed to be humble, yet champion your morality derived from your god with arrogance. Oh the irony...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Demonstrate how humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals, either with evidence or a sound and valid syllogism. And Keep the insults to a minimum, will you? It's about time someone put your ass to the fire. You get away with too much around here.

There is no doubt: You're dumb enough to rape a beehive.

I didn't expect you to fall apart so quickly. You have no rational justification for your speciesism, which means you are paradoxically vindicating Singer while attempting to admonish him, and you predictably resort to insult. It is simple. When pressed for logical justification of your beliefs, you hide behind rhetoric and insult. You are immature and so enamored with your own intelligence, that you fail to see your own flaws. This is the epitome of vanity and pride. The further irony is that you are a Christian, which means you are instructed to be humble, yet champion your morality derived from your god with arrogance. Oh the irony...

".... that you fail to see your own flaws."
I keep telling you, I don't have any!!


"...you are instructed to be humble,..."
I don't take instruction that well.

My personality is so magnetic I can’t carry credit cards.
And...I can melt ice with my eyes….it takes a few minutes.
And I have a black belt in Karioke!

Didn’t you say Elvis sat between you and bigfoot on the UFO?

 

[newpolitics]

There is no doubt: You're dumb enough to rape a beehive.

I didn't expect you to fall apart so quickly. You have no rational justification for your speciesism, which means you are paradoxically vindicating Singer while attempting to admonish him, and you predictably resort to insult. It is simple. When pressed for logical justification of your beliefs, you hide behind rhetoric and insult. You are immature and so enamored with your own intelligence, that you fail to see your own flaws. This is the epitome of vanity and pride. The further irony is that you are a Christian, which means you are instructed to be humble, yet champion your morality derived from your god with arrogance. Oh the irony...

".... that you fail to see your own flaws."
I keep telling you, I don't have any!!


"...you are instructed to be humble,..."
I don't take instruction that well.

My personality is so magnetic I can’t carry credit cards.
And...I can melt ice with my eyes….it takes a few minutes.
And I have a black belt in Karioke!

Didn’t you say Elvis sat between you and bigfoot on the UFO?

So, when beaten, you just become silly? That's kind of cute I guess, in a really pathetic way. You ought to consider becoming a clown if this is the case.

 

[Mortimer]

How is it that seemingly normal folks have endorsed, voted for lunatics? Animals...the same as human beings????
Ecologists have warned that the consideration that we show to different species often depends on how cute we find them, or how aesthetically pleasing. Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation | ResearchGate






1. Recall the old joke: “My family had a petting zoo for folks who like animals, and a heavy petting zoo for folks who REALLY like animals.” Not quite so funny is that Obama-selected Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer wrote a book called “Animal Liberation,” considered to be the founder of the animal rights movement. Animal Liberation at 30 by Peter Singer | The New York Review of Books

a. “…despite obvious differences between humans and nonhuman animals, we share with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us, have interests. If we ignore or discount their interests, simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists who think that those who belong to their race or sex have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their race or sex, and irrespective of other characteristics or qualities.” Singer, work cited.

2. But Singer goes a good deal further, encouraging bestiality, having sex with animals: “bestiality…ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings.”
Now, here I’d like all to consider the connection of this view to all Leftist doctrines: neo-Marxism is an avowed enemy of Judeo-Christian tradition. If unable to see the connections here, consider what Singer says here: “The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God.”
Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer

a. Singer, part of the Obama administration, is rife with the lunacy of all Leftism. He states that, as racism is unjustifiable, so, then, is speciesism.






3. Understanding the above also explains why the theory of evolution is so essential to Leftism. If Leftists can prove to the population that, contrary to religious doctrine, we are just another species in the biosphere, then they can be convinced that we need not treat other people any differently than any animals.

4. John Holdren- did I mention Obama picked him to be ‘Science Czar’?-well, check this out:
“John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much.
Ehrlich, Ehrlich, and Holdren, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/EHLRICH1.PDF
This is what an Obama vote empowered. Lunatics.






5. Notice the pattern? Note how neatly this folds into environmentalism: Environmentalists view mankind as a virus, a disease that must be eradicated. In 2011, the wife of John Holdren’s pal Paul Ehrlich wrote a piece in the LATimes, comparing humanity to cancer: “Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.”
Overpopulation: Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society - Los Angeles Times

6. Singer, Holdren, are hardly the only maniacs in high office. Cass Sundstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, wrote that animals should be given legal standing and could sue humans. The lunatics are running the asylum….and they’ve even elected another lunatic to be President.




The Left works tirelessly to shatter Judeo-Christian traditions.
Animals, the same rights as people?
You don’t have to be much of an artist to know where to draw the line.

Thats fucking crazy

 

[Mortimer]

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.
.

You are a crazy maniac. just like this singer guy. you should be locked up in a mental assylym. even to coin the term "speciesism" is ridicolous and crazy, insane. i agree that animals shouldnt mistreated or tortured etc. or put to unneccessary cruelty but that humans shouldnt discriminate animals is ridicolous, whats with animals not discriminating other animals? thats speciesism too. or the right of flies to vote?

 

[newpolitics]

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.
.

You are a crazy maniac. just like this singer guy. you should be locked up in a mental assylym. even to coin the term "speciesism" is ridicolous and crazy, insane. i agree that animals shouldnt mistreated or tortured etc. or put to unneccessary cruelty but that humans shouldnt discriminate animals is ridicolous, whats with animals not discriminating other animals? thats speciesism too. or the right of flies to vote?

You seem to no have clue what speciesism means, or how animals are treated across several of our industries. Otherwise you couldn't possibly have said what you just did. You say that you don't like animal suffering? Well all speciesism decrees is that the interests of animals should be considered as well. These interests, which we share, consist of avoiding pain and chasing pleasure, and living over dying. People who are speciesist are those who act like the interests of animals should not factor into how we treat and use them. It had nothing to do with discrimination against animals, as this doesn't make sense, but discrimination against their inherent interests. That is all Singer is saying, or has ever said about animals, an is a completely rational position to hold. Perhaps you should get a hold of the definitions within position you claim to think are crazy. Until then, you are arguing a straw man.

More importantly, until you are versed in how horribly we treat animals, you can not have a concept of why speciesism was a term brought into existence, and why it accurately describes many people's consumerist behavior who support industries that treat animals as objects or machines as Descartes described.

Do yourself a favor. Learn some truth before you go insulting someone. Watch a movie called Earthlings. It's free. Go here or find it on youtube. Please watch and them tell me you don't understand. Then I will actually consider your position.

www.earthlings.com

 

[Mortimer]

Your petty insults are getting boring. It would seem as if a compensatory mechanism for your lack of argument. The hypocrisy in your moral assessment is astounding, considering you are a Christian who believes in a murderous war god who decides that killing a group of children by bear attack was the moral thing to do, yet, with this being standard for your morality, you claim to have a moral high ground on Peter Singer? That's laughable.
.

You are a crazy maniac. just like this singer guy. you should be locked up in a mental assylym. even to coin the term "speciesism" is ridicolous and crazy, insane. i agree that animals shouldnt mistreated or tortured etc. or put to unneccessary cruelty but that humans shouldnt discriminate animals is ridicolous, whats with animals not discriminating other animals? thats speciesism too. or the right of flies to vote?

You seem to no have clue what speciesism means, or how animals are treated across several of our industries. Otherwise you couldn't possibly have said what you just did. You say that you don't like animal suffering? Well all speciesism decrees is that the interests of animals should be considered as well. These interests, which we share, consist of avoiding pain and chasing pleasure, and living over dying. People who are speciesist are those who act like the interests of animals should not factor into how we treat and use them. It had nothing to do with discrimination against animals, as this doesn't make sense, but discrimination against their inherent interests. That is all Singer is saying, or has ever said about animals, an is a completely rational position to hold. Perhaps you should get a hold of the definitions within position you claim to think are crazy. Until then, you are arguing a straw man.

More importantly, until you are versed in how horribly we treat animals, you can not have a concept of why speciesism was a term brought into existence, and why it accurately describes many people's consumerist behavior who support industries that treat animals as objects or machines as Descartes described.

Do yourself a favor. Learn some truth before you go insulting someone. Watch a movie called Earthlings. It's free. Go here or find it on youtube. Please watch and them tell me you don't understand. Then I will actually consider your position.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

speciesist is a ridicolous term which makes my stomach hurt, the right term should be animal abuser, speciesist does connotate to similar Terms like racism, sexism etc. and does include discriminative behaviour

 

[newpolitics]

You are a crazy maniac. just like this singer guy. you should be locked up in a mental assylym. even to coin the term "speciesism" is ridicolous and crazy, insane. i agree that animals shouldnt mistreated or tortured etc. or put to unneccessary cruelty but that humans shouldnt discriminate animals is ridicolous, whats with animals not discriminating other animals? thats speciesism too. or the right of flies to vote?

You seem to no have clue what speciesism means, or how animals are treated across several of our industries. Otherwise you couldn't possibly have said what you just did. You say that you don't like animal suffering? Well all speciesism decrees is that the interests of animals should be considered as well. These interests, which we share, consist of avoiding pain and chasing pleasure, and living over dying. People who are speciesist are those who act like the interests of animals should not factor into how we treat and use them. It had nothing to do with discrimination against animals, as this doesn't make sense, but discrimination against their inherent interests. That is all Singer is saying, or has ever said about animals, an is a completely rational position to hold. Perhaps you should get a hold of the definitions within position you claim to think are crazy. Until then, you are arguing a straw man.

More importantly, until you are versed in how horribly we treat animals, you can not have a concept of why speciesism was a term brought into existence, and why it accurately describes many people's consumerist behavior who support industries that treat animals as objects or machines as Descartes described.

Do yourself a favor. Learn some truth before you go insulting someone. Watch a movie called Earthlings. It's free. Go here or find it on youtube. Please watch and them tell me you don't understand. Then I will actually consider your position.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

speciesist is a ridicolous term which makes my stomach hurt, the right term should be animal abuser, speciesist does connotate to similar Terms like racism, sexism etc. and does include discriminative behaviour

A speciesist is someone who doesn't take the interests of animals seriously, or consider them equal to our own interests. This is equivalent to the idea of racism or sexism.

 

[Mortimer]

You seem to no have clue what speciesism means, or how animals are treated across several of our industries. Otherwise you couldn't possibly have said what you just did. You say that you don't like animal suffering? Well all speciesism decrees is that the interests of animals should be considered as well. These interests, which we share, consist of avoiding pain and chasing pleasure, and living over dying. People who are speciesist are those who act like the interests of animals should not factor into how we treat and use them. It had nothing to do with discrimination against animals, as this doesn't make sense, but discrimination against their inherent interests. That is all Singer is saying, or has ever said about animals, an is a completely rational position to hold. Perhaps you should get a hold of the definitions within position you claim to think are crazy. Until then, you are arguing a straw man.

More importantly, until you are versed in how horribly we treat animals, you can not have a concept of why speciesism was a term brought into existence, and why it accurately describes many people's consumerist behavior who support industries that treat animals as objects or machines as Descartes described.

Do yourself a favor. Learn some truth before you go insulting someone. Watch a movie called Earthlings. It's free. Go here or find it on youtube. Please watch and them tell me you don't understand. Then I will actually consider your position.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

speciesist is a ridicolous term which makes my stomach hurt, the right term should be animal abuser, speciesist does connotate to similar Terms like racism, sexism etc. and does include discriminative behaviour

A speciesist is someone who doesn't take the interests of animals seriously, or consider them equal to our own interests. This is equivalent to the idea of racism or sexism.

animal interestes are not equal to humans interests. i would kill a animal farm if it would safe the life of a Group of People who are lets say infected with a newly disease and it could save them.

 

[newpolitics]

speciesist is a ridicolous term which makes my stomach hurt, the right term should be animal abuser, speciesist does connotate to similar Terms like racism, sexism etc. and does include discriminative behaviour

A speciesist is someone who doesn't take the interests of animals seriously, or consider them equal to our own interests. This is equivalent to the idea of racism or sexism.

animal interestes are not equal to humans interests. i would kill a animal farm if it would safe the life of a Group of People who are lets say infected with a newly disease and it could save them.

You just demonstrated that you are a speciesist. I don't expect you to care. If only you knew the suffering you are causing for animals. It's a shame you possess such weak justification for such a harmful beliefs.

 

[Mortimer]

A speciesist is someone who doesn't take the interests of animals seriously, or consider them equal to our own interests. This is equivalent to the idea of racism or sexism.

animal interestes are not equal to humans interests. i would kill a animal farm if it would safe the life of a Group of People who are lets say infected with a newly disease and it could save them.

You just demonstrated that you are a speciesist. I don't expect you to care. If only you knew the suffering you are causing for animals. It's a shame you possess such weak justification for such a harmful beliefs.

By the term you coined and defined im speciesist yes, but every other sane Person is too. Humans have a right to live, persue happiness, animals have the same right before they are eaten

you see the difference?
and i wouldnt cause unneccessary cruelty to animals, i would also take care of the Environment and plants etc. look to not pollute it, to be in peace with whole creation and treat it well.

 

[newpolitics]

animal interestes are not equal to humans interests. i would kill a animal farm if it would safe the life of a Group of People who are lets say infected with a newly disease and it could save them.

You just demonstrated that you are a speciesist. I don't expect you to care. If only you knew the suffering you are causing for animals. It's a shame you possess such weak justification for such a harmful beliefs.

By the term you coined and defined im speciesist yes, but every other sane Person is too. Humans have a right to live, persue happiness, animals have the same right before they are eaten

you see the difference?
and i wouldnt cause unneccessary cruelty to animals, i would also take care of the Environment and plants etc. look to not pollute it, to be in peace with whole creation and treat it well.

Are you familiar with factory farming? Vivisection?

 

[Mortimer]

You just demonstrated that you are a speciesist. I don't expect you to care. If only you knew the suffering you are causing for animals. It's a shame you possess such weak justification for such a harmful beliefs.

By the term you coined and defined im speciesist yes, but every other sane Person is too. Humans have a right to live, persue happiness, animals have the same right before they are eaten

you see the difference?
and i wouldnt cause unneccessary cruelty to animals, i would also take care of the Environment and plants etc. look to not pollute it, to be in peace with whole creation and treat it well.

Are you familiar with factory farming? Vivisection?

no im not, and im Aware that humans can destroy nature and be cruel to animals which is wrong. but the term speciesist is want i dont like. i also explained why

 

[newpolitics]

By the term you coined and defined im speciesist yes, but every other sane Person is too. Humans have a right to live, persue happiness, animals have the same right before they are eaten

you see the difference?
and i wouldnt cause unneccessary cruelty to animals, i would also take care of the Environment and plants etc. look to not pollute it, to be in peace with whole creation and treat it well.

Are you familiar with factory farming? Vivisection?

no im not, and im Aware that humans can destroy nature and be cruel to animals which is wrong. but the term speciesist is want i dont like. i also explained why

Okay, so I am going to ask you to please learn about factory farming. It is the modern method of farming for %99 of animals sold as meat, dairy and eggs. That is why I asked you to watch Earthlings. It is an eye opening documentary that covers the treatment of nonhuman animals. If you truly are an inquiring mind, you wil appreciate it for the raw truth it captures. It is the reason I went vegan. It's a full length documentary and again, its free.

 

[G.T.]

Newpolitics,

Nature is what you make of it. To say that there's no argument for human interests being of more value/importance than animal interests is to deny evolution and the food chain, and several hundred other things like our ability to preserve life in situations where animals and ourselves would otherwise perish. Humans can be Veterinary Doctors, animals cannot. Humans can be human doctors, animals cannot.

I don't believe in animal torture and abuse, and I saw Earthlings in its entirety a while back. It's enough to incite some rage, for sure. But it's not enough to consider animals as equal to my own species.

We are the kings of the jungle, not lions. That's because we're smarter and more cunning. This is why we are necessarily more important to the circle of life, even if much of that life parishes as a result of our dominance.

If an owl was alone in a room with mice, he most certainly would have his own interests above the mice for the duration of the meal.

 

[newpolitics]

How are you logically connecting the fact of evolution to the idea that we ought to consider human interests above all other species? You are attempting to derive and "ought" from an "is." Hume's Guillotine makes this impossible. In this specific context, this is known as the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, descriptions of our evolutionary past, of the subjectively apparent superiority in the animal kingdom, or of our Apparent nature are not able to give us prescriptions for actions or behaviors. Yet, this is what you are attempting to do. Just because we are superior in the animal kingdom, doesn't mean we ought to do anything. That subjective fact doesn't give you: "therefore, we ought to take our interests as more important than animals." There is no logical connectivity.

The truth is, no one has ever put forward a rational argument that allows humans to undermine the interests of animals and bolster our own. Appealing to obvious biases is not an argument. We are biologically programmed to preserve our own species, and therefore consider the interests of our species above others, but that doesn't mean we ought to. It doesn't mean that we should treat animals any less, or take their interests into less account, or discount the suffering we bestow upon them. I'm not understanding how you are concluding this based merely on what "is." Normative statements are always conditional, too. You can't just say "humans ought to eat meat." You could say, "humans ought go eat meat, if they want to live like their ancestors." Put any if you want there. Nowhere can you get a normative statement from a descriptive one though.