Obama's Anti-Speciesists In Charge

[newpolitics]

By the way, I'm not asking you to consider animals as equal to humans. I don't even know what that means or why it would be important. I am only asking you to consider their interests of pain aversion and pleasure seeking as something to be respected as valid, and deserving of our consideration, since we also have the same interests, and the same ability to detect pain. If we are to be morally consistent, we ought to consider their interests as valid as our own.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You've no argument that human interests *aren't* more important than other animals' interests, and I did provide a reason that they are --> our sentience. Does that even need to be explained?

Dogs can't preserve the life of another dog who broke his leg in the wild.

Humans can.

I see tons of reasoning behind human interests being superior.

And you're right, Survival alone can't be a logical reason, but survival coupled with the greater ability to implement survival is.

Instead of arguing like you're a Math teacher and yelling fallacy fallacy roar, give your own reasoning and examples.

 

[G.T.]

By the way, I'm not asking you to consider animals as equal to humans. I don't even know what that means or why it would be important. I am only asking you to consider their interests of pain aversion and pleasure seeking as something to be respected as valid, and deserving of our consideration, since we also have the same interests, and the same ability to detect pain. If we are to be morally consistent, we ought to consider their interests as valid as our own.

Considering our interests above theirs doesn't necessary lead to mistreatment for pleasure.

 

[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.

You've no argument that human interests *aren't* more important than other animals' interests, and I did provide a reason that they are --> our sentience. Does that even need to be explained?

Dogs can't preserve the life of another dog who broke his leg in the wild.

Humans can.

I see tons of reasoning behind human interests being superior.

And you're right, Survival alone can't be a logical reason, but survival coupled with the greater ability to implement survival is.

Instead of arguing like you're a Math teacher and yelling fallacy fallacy roar, give your own reasoning and examples.

What does sentience have to with interests being considered or not? Nothing. Nor does any ability to add 2+2 or be altruistic. I don't are how superior you think we are. Cheetahs are way faster than us. Lions could kill us in an open field. Many animals can do things we could never do. Who cares?!! Using Your logic, we should ignore the interests of human babies, who cant perform any higher functions such as addition, empathy, or self-awareness. Are you willing to make this argument? This isn't a contest of attributes. This is a fact about interests for all living things. We have come out on top using our intellect, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the interests of the animals we use, which is exactly what we are doing in factory farms, locking them in tight spaces, castrating them, ear and teeth clipping with no anesthetic, and killing and sometimes boiling and dismembering them while they are still alive. This is such a gross violation of a respect for their interests, and is a result of speciesism, mostly on the part of the consumers, who are the ones truly responsible for this. Secondly, you can not demonstrate that only humans are sentient. Inherent in declarations like these are biases about what sentience means. There have been other animals that demonstrate self awareness, such as dolphins and chimps. Whose to say that animals such as cows or pigs don't know they are alive, and hence have the ability to enjoy it or hate it? Perhaps they are self aware to a lesser extent, but again, this has nothing to do with pain detection or the inherent interests set in motion by these perceptual abilities, which we do know they possess. I claim that your position is based in a total bias and preference for human interests being considered, merely because you are a human. This kind of subjectively derived conclusion is not obviously objective, and doesn't take into any other information other than "I am human. Therefore, I am the best."

I did provide an argument for our interests being equal. We all have central nervous systems with the ability to detect pain in the exact same way, as would be expected by evolution. All mammals are evolved from the same animal years ago, so many of our morphological and functional traits are similar, and it is to be expected, that pain would be experienced in a similar way. Therefore, as I already stated, if we are to be morally consistent, we must consider the interests of animals (desire for life, aversion to pain), as valid and worth equal consideration to our own, given that empathy is possible.

You are positing that speciesism is a justifiable position, yet can not rationally justify this. You have a burden of proof since you are making the claim. All I see are a bunch of claims about our superiority as justifications.

I am pointing out the logical flaws in your position to convince you that it is not a justifiable position. That is all I need to do. I don't need to prove that animals interests are equal to our own. They either are, or they aren't. It is a true dichotomy, therefore, proving your position to be untenable is all that is required.

 

[jillian]

Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...

peter singer is a compulsive liar...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Judean/Christian mythology also includes the belief that God says that life is sacred yet killed many in his moral vengance. Did the children of Egypt deserve to die to get a point over from God. Surely a parly would have sufficed.

Great argument, sparky...

Oh, wait...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your petty insults are getting boring.

Now wait a damned minute, if you want petty and insulting, that's what I'm here for.....

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.

The average gerbil has the moral high ground on Pete Singer; and they eat their young.

Singer is a sociopath. He has all the attributes of a Josef Stalin or Pol Pot; he simply hasn't had the opportunity to implement his goals - yet.

Singer not only lacks basic compassion or any sense of value for human life, but in fact demonstrates a deep contempt for the species. Singer's book "Practical Ethics" is the prose of a serial killer. We assume that Singer has never acted on his foul and insipid beliefs, but then, no one has dug up his basement, so one cannot be sure.

I stand by my statement about Singers stance on human life. That fact that he thinks killing infants who would inevitably live a miserable and pain-filled life into death does not mean he has no value for human life. This is just a reactionary viewpoint because it is different from yours, and you like to judge others, yet have not demonstrated perfection, in fact you are far from in having faith in the war god Yahweh, who, if we are to take the bible literally, has committed far worse. Singer merely assesses suffering, and from a Utilitarian standpoint, tries to lessen it. He keeps his reasoning consistent across all situations, without reference to the arbitrary whims of a god who can't keep his story straight from one publication to the next. Some find this uncomfortable, as you seem to, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value on human life, nor does using this specific part of his beliefs in an attempt at slandering him mean that animals have any less value than human life. I want to make sure that this is not your conclusion as a result if singers views or anyone elses, because it would be a classic ad hominem. It is speciesism views such as yours that allow and would defend factory farming, an institution of torture for billions of animals a year, who's suffering is completely discounted because "Peter Singer doesn't value human life." WHA!!! Get over yourself.

Singer is a decent representation of the sociopathic left. If we wonder at the 100 million that Mao butchered, we only need look to men like Singer as an explanation.

If your interested in sidestepping this ad hominem fallacy you seem to be engaging in, try confronting the animal abuses yourself. You present yourself as one interested in truth, here it is. The uncomfortable, inconvenient truth in all of its glory. Follow this link and watch "Earthlings" and witness the effects if speciesism mentalities, then you might actually know something about this topic you judge others for.

Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth

Its free, so no excuses. Or, just search it on YouTube. Good luck.

And what constitutes "abuse" in your mind? A dog eating the intestines out of a still alive rabbit, or fried chicken?

Singer is a monster, pure evil.

Are you?

 

[edthecynic]

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[G.T.]

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.

You've no argument that human interests *aren't* more important than other animals' interests, and I did provide a reason that they are --> our sentience. Does that even need to be explained?

Dogs can't preserve the life of another dog who broke his leg in the wild.

Humans can.

I see tons of reasoning behind human interests being superior.

And you're right, Survival alone can't be a logical reason, but survival coupled with the greater ability to implement survival is.

Instead of arguing like you're a Math teacher and yelling fallacy fallacy roar, give your own reasoning and examples.

What does sentience have to with interests being considered or not? Nothing. Nor does any ability to add 2+2 or be altruistic. I don't are how superior you think we are. Cheetahs are way faster than us. Lions could kill us in an open field. Many animals can do things we could never do. Who cares?!! Using Your logic, we should ignore the interests of human babies, who cant perform any higher functions such as addition, empathy, or self-awareness. Are you willing to make this argument? This isn't a contest of attributes. This is a fact about interests for all living things. We have come out on top using our intellect, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the interests of the animals we use, which is exactly what we are doing in factory farms, locking them in tight spaces, castrating them, ear and teeth clipping with no anesthetic, and killing and sometimes boiling and dismembering them while they are still alive. This is such a gross violation of a respect for their interests, and is a result of speciesism, mostly on the part of the consumers, who are the ones truly responsible for this. Secondly, you can not demonstrate that only humans are sentient. Inherent in declarations like these are biases about what sentience means. There have been other animals that demonstrate self awareness, such as dolphins and chimps. Whose to say that animals such as cows or pigs don't know they are alive, and hence have the ability to enjoy it or hate it? Perhaps they are self aware to a lesser extent, but again, this has nothing to do with pain detection or the inherent interests set in motion by these perceptual abilities, which we do know they possess. I claim that your position is based in a total bias and preference for human interests being considered, merely because you are a human. This kind of subjectively derived conclusion is not obviously objective, and doesn't take into any other information other than "I am human. Therefore, I am the best."

I did provide an argument for our interests being equal. We all have central nervous systems with the ability to detect pain in the exact same way, as would be expected by evolution. All mammals are evolved from the same animal years ago, so many of our morphological and functional traits are similar, and it is to be expected, that pain would be experienced in a similar way. Therefore, as I already stated, if we are to be morally consistent, we must consider the interests of animals (desire for life, aversion to pain), as valid and worth equal consideration to our own, given that empathy is possible.

You are positing that speciesism is a justifiable position, yet can not rationally justify this. You have a burden of proof since you are making the claim. All I see are a bunch of claims about our superiority as justifications.

I am pointing out the logical flaws in your position to convince you that it is not a justifiable position. That is all I need to do. I don't need to prove that animals interests are equal to our own. They either are, or they aren't. It is a true dichotomy, therefore, proving your position to be untenable is all that is required.

It's not logically flawed because it's not even a decision you can reach using logic of the traditional sense. It's an opinion, not a provable or disprovable fact. There is no 1 + 1 = 2 here, there is no "I think therefore I am" moment to be had in the discussion. Only reasons and hypothetical conclusions. Loose ones. Keeping on bringing up "logic logic logic" is a crutch.

When you say that my position is not justifiable, you're wrong again. That's a value judgement, not a logical conclusion.

The coin of logic can be flipped in any way possible in regard to a moral question.

It is subjective no matter which conclusion you reach, and yours is no more or less justified by logic than mine.




Anyways,

Your post is full of missing words and shit, it was hard to decipher, but one thing is certain - half of your argument is against things that I never even said.

That's, in a word, annoying and a waste of my time.

You keep on bringing up animal torture and abuse, and I keep saying that I'm not for that.

You're wasting both of our time, and again, that's annoying as fawk.



I'm kind of lost as to what you're getting at, also. In practice, our interests are superior in that there's nothing they can fucking do about it that we consider them so. So what being or force in the end decides what is equal, if not the forces of nature that brought us to being a more intelligent, thus dominant, species? I can't think of one. Mother earth isn't a real chick, you know. (or do you know?)

And also - what I said about doctors? A totally sound reasoning as to why we're superior. We posess the ability to do more good than any other species posesses period, and that alone to me is a good and justifiable reasoning.

That we also do bad is something called "what is," or "the nature of the beast," and it doesnt negate the fact that we posess the ability to do more good than any other species that ever lived on this planet, period. That makes our "interests" superior, and by "interests" we haven't even defined our terms but when I mention "interests" I'm referring to us being more important period.

 

[G.T.]

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

I agree that they should be treated well, killed humanely, etc., but if a monkey wants the right to bear arms then he should both be able and willing to fight for that right and also be responsible with said gun.

If a zebra wants freedom of speech, let him tell me something.

If you mean simply the right to life - then should we execute all of the meat eaters for murder?Or should they be held to a lesser standard of ethics yet be treated as equals?

 

[edthecynic]

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

I agree that they should be treated well, killed humanely, etc., but if a monkey wants the right to bear arms then he should both be able and willing to fight for that right and also be responsible with said gun.

If a zebra wants freedom of speech, let him tell me something.

If you mean simply the right to life - then should we execute all of the meat eaters for murder? Or should they be held to a lesser standard of ethics yet be treated as equals?

I believe the highlighted part is what Schopenhauer is speaking to.

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality

 

[G.T.]

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

I agree that they should be treated well, killed humanely, etc., but if a monkey wants the right to bear arms then he should both be able and willing to fight for that right and also be responsible with said gun.

If a zebra wants freedom of speech, let him tell me something.

If you mean simply the right to life - then should we execute all of the meat eaters for murder? Or should they be held to a lesser standard of ethics yet be treated as equals?

I believe the highlighted part is what Schopenhauer is speaking to.

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality

I have compassion for animals, but not as much compassion as I have for humans.... is all.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree that they should be treated well, killed humanely, etc., but if a monkey wants the right to bear arms then he should both be able and willing to fight for that right and also be responsible with said gun.

If a zebra wants freedom of speech, let him tell me something.

If you mean simply the right to life - then should we execute all of the meat eaters for murder? Or should they be held to a lesser standard of ethics yet be treated as equals?

I believe the highlighted part is what Schopenhauer is speaking to.

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality

I have compassion for animals, but not as much compassion as I have for humans.... is all.

You have my sympathy.

“It is a man's sympathy with all creatures that truly makes him a man. Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man himself will not find peace.”
Albert Schweitzer

 

[jillian]

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

animals have no rights.

that does not negate the obligation to treat them with kindness and not inflict unnecessary suffering.

 

[G.T.]

I believe the highlighted part is what Schopenhauer is speaking to.

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality

I have compassion for animals, but not as much compassion as I have for humans.... is all.

You have my sympathy.

“It is a man's sympathy with all creatures that truly makes him a man. Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man himself will not find peace.”
Albert Schweitzer

word.

 

[jillian]

You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.

Having read his little how to book on animal activism, called "Animal Liberation", I, personally know a great deal about peter singer. he believes "a rat is a fish is a dog is a boy". and he supports lying for the cause since he believes the ends justify the means. you know that, too.

my experience with animal rights activists is they don't care what information they falsify so long as it advances their agenda.

my experience with animal rights activists, whom i have had the displeasure to know and the need to litigate against on behalf of clients, is that they lack compassion for humans. i can't say none have any children, but most don't have children or they would spend their time on advancing more substantive agenda.

and before you say i don't love animals, i do. my life has always been filled with pets.

i just don't like people who think an animal's life is more important than a child's.... or who equate an animal's life with the life of a child.

 

[newpolitics]

You've no argument that human interests *aren't* more important than other animals' interests, and I did provide a reason that they are --> our sentience. Does that even need to be explained?

Dogs can't preserve the life of another dog who broke his leg in the wild.

Humans can.

I see tons of reasoning behind human interests being superior.

And you're right, Survival alone can't be a logical reason, but survival coupled with the greater ability to implement survival is.

Instead of arguing like you're a Math teacher and yelling fallacy fallacy roar, give your own reasoning and examples.

What does sentience have to with interests being considered or not? Nothing. Nor does any ability to add 2+2 or be altruistic. I don't are how superior you think we are. Cheetahs are way faster than us. Lions could kill us in an open field. Many animals can do things we could never do. Who cares?!! Using Your logic, we should ignore the interests of human babies, who cant perform any higher functions such as addition, empathy, or self-awareness. Are you willing to make this argument? This isn't a contest of attributes. This is a fact about interests for all living things. We have come out on top using our intellect, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the interests of the animals we use, which is exactly what we are doing in factory farms, locking them in tight spaces, castrating them, ear and teeth clipping with no anesthetic, and killing and sometimes boiling and dismembering them while they are still alive. This is such a gross violation of a respect for their interests, and is a result of speciesism, mostly on the part of the consumers, who are the ones truly responsible for this. Secondly, you can not demonstrate that only humans are sentient. Inherent in declarations like these are biases about what sentience means. There have been other animals that demonstrate self awareness, such as dolphins and chimps. Whose to say that animals such as cows or pigs don't know they are alive, and hence have the ability to enjoy it or hate it? Perhaps they are self aware to a lesser extent, but again, this has nothing to do with pain detection or the inherent interests set in motion by these perceptual abilities, which we do know they possess. I claim that your position is based in a total bias and preference for human interests being considered, merely because you are a human. This kind of subjectively derived conclusion is not obviously objective, and doesn't take into any other information other than "I am human. Therefore, I am the best."

I did provide an argument for our interests being equal. We all have central nervous systems with the ability to detect pain in the exact same way, as would be expected by evolution. All mammals are evolved from the same animal years ago, so many of our morphological and functional traits are similar, and it is to be expected, that pain would be experienced in a similar way. Therefore, as I already stated, if we are to be morally consistent, we must consider the interests of animals (desire for life, aversion to pain), as valid and worth equal consideration to our own, given that empathy is possible.

You are positing that speciesism is a justifiable position, yet can not rationally justify this. You have a burden of proof since you are making the claim. All I see are a bunch of claims about our superiority as justifications.

I am pointing out the logical flaws in your position to convince you that it is not a justifiable position. That is all I need to do. I don't need to prove that animals interests are equal to our own. They either are, or they aren't. It is a true dichotomy, therefore, proving your position to be untenable is all that is required.

It's not logically flawed because it's not even a decision you can reach using logic of the traditional sense. It's an opinion, not a provable or disprovable fact. There is no 1 + 1 = 2 here, there is no "I think therefore I am" moment to be had in the discussion. Only reasons and hypothetical conclusions. Loose ones. Keeping on bringing up "logic logic logic" is a crutch.

When you say that my position is not justifiable, you're wrong again. That's a value judgement, not a logical conclusion.

The coin of logic can be flipped in any way possible in regard to a moral question.

It is subjective no matter which conclusion you reach, and yours is no more or less justified by logic than mine.




Anyways,

Your post is full of missing words and shit, it was hard to decipher, but one thing is certain - half of your argument is against things that I never even said.

That's, in a word, annoying and a waste of my time.

You keep on bringing up animal torture and abuse, and I keep saying that I'm not for that.

You're wasting both of our time, and again, that's annoying as fawk.



I'm kind of lost as to what you're getting at, also. In practice, our interests are superior in that there's nothing they can fucking do about it that we consider them so. So what being or force in the end decides what is equal, if not the forces of nature that brought us to being a more intelligent, thus dominant, species? I can't think of one. Mother earth isn't a real chick, you know. (or do you know?)

And also - what I said about doctors? A totally sound reasoning as to why we're superior. We posess the ability to do more good than any other species posesses period, and that alone to me is a good and justifiable reasoning.

That we also do bad is something called "what is," or "the nature of the beast," and it doesnt negate the fact that we posess the ability to do more good than any other species that ever lived on this planet, period. That makes our "interests" superior, and by "interests" we haven't even defined our terms but when I mention "interests" I'm referring to us being more important period.

I am addressing the lack of basis you have for your position. You admit you can not rationally justify speciesism. Then you try to say logic isn't everything. Yet, we are making arguments, which are conclusions drawn from premises. Logic is inherent in all thought, belief, argument, and debate. It is not always sound or valid logic, but there is logic nonetheless. To try and denigrate logic itself is an attempt at escaping the fact that you have no logical justification for your own position, and you know it. You mention values. Values are normative statements, therefore you are left making the naturalistic fallacy again, trying to derive an ought from an is. i am saying animal interests should be considered out if hand, if we are to be morally consistent. i already said this, yet you said i had mo justification for my own beliefs. thats annoying. How can you even justify your own values on which to make an argument about how to treat animals? None of this makes any sense. I guess that this is something you never thought about, because it seemed so intuitive to you that humans be above animals.

You contradict yourself when you say you are against animal cruelty, but don't believe animal interests should be respected as equal to our own. It is only through the ill consideration of animal interests that people can justify buying animal products from factory farms.

 

[newpolitics]

Logic is the basis for all argumentation. To say otherwise is ignorant.

 

[newpolitics]

You know nothing about Singers views if you think he doesn't respect human life. He merely correctly asserts that there is no rational justification for speciesism. Try to actually know what you are talking about as opposed to just being polemical to get attention.

Having read his little how to book on animal activism, called "Animal Liberation", I, personally know a great deal about peter singer. he believes "a rat is a fish is a dog is a boy". and he supports lying for the cause since he believes the ends justify the means. you know that, too.

my experience with animal rights activists is they don't care what information they falsify so long as it advances their agenda.

my experience with animal rights activists, whom i have had the displeasure to know and the need to litigate against on behalf of clients, is that they lack compassion for humans. i can't say none have any children, but most don't have children or they would spend their time on advancing more substantive agenda.

and before you say i don't love animals, i do. my life has always been filled with pets.

i just don't like people who think an animal's life is more important than a child's.... or who equate an animal's life with the life of a child.

You don't love animals if you are supporting industries that effectively torture animals, ie buying meat, dairy, or eggs from factory farms. You can say you love dogs and cats, but not animals in general, since that would include the animals you eat. Assuming you purchase meat, dairy, and eggs that are sourced from factory farms, your actions would indicate that you in fact hate animals and wan to harm yhem, making you ignorant to hypocrisy of your own own statement "I love animals."

I own "animal liberation" but have not read it. Also, you seem to be committing an ad hominem fallacy when you imply that because your interactions with Animal rights activists had been sub standard, you think their positions are also bad and not worth consideration. That is a logical fallacy. There is no logical connectivity between the quality of a persons character and their arguments.

 

[Mortimer]

newspolitics did you ever killed a fly?