Jul 12, 2012 -- 5:52PM, Erey wrote:

Jul 12, 2012 -- 3:34PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Jul 12, 2012 -- 3:20PM, NATAS wrote:

What can't be questioned is that all living beings have an equal right to live and that any murder or other expolitation is a cruel exploitation of any species committed by specists.    

What also can't be questioned is that when other species exploit another species the cannot be called cruel because their morality-ethics is either different or non-existent. 

Ironically, you just laid out the fatal flaw of self-contradiction with the "specists" concept.

I sort of hate the term specist and I suspect it only exists on Bnet.

It's basically a trumped up term, invented by Animal Rights. Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be), it was coined by the AR philosopher Peter Singer.

IMO, it's little more than a rhetorical attempt to discredit any who might disagree with AR philosophy by inventing a "bigotry."

See, it's fairly simple. If you cast the view you don't like as "bigotry," then you can win the debate before it even begins. Because bigotry isn't something you reason or compromise with.

Beyond that, it gives AR a sense (IMO, a completely false sense) of crediblity. As people have stuggled for justice against racism and sexism, they can now stuggle against "specisim." 

Again, it builds, at least at first blush, an aire of unquestionable credibility. After all, who would be "for" bigotry" and "against" equality/rights?

Of course, upon even a cursory examination, the entire thing falls appart, because unlike with blacks or women, you can't logically argue animals are equals being denied fundamental rights.

Therefore, IMO, "speciest" is just a meaningless word.

You might as well go around saying, "snargleflarb."

Damn it all to hell, I am really, REALLY sick of people deriding veganism and animal rights, and acting as if speciesism is just some trumped-up tree-hugger nonsense.  It happens to be a legitimate term coined by a psychologist in the 1970s:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

If you would even bother to read the Wiki description (which I highly doubt) you would see that it means 'prejudice against nonhumans based on morally irrelevant physical differences.'

www.richardryder.co.uk/speciesism.html

Whether the hunters of doubters like it or not, this is an actual word:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciesi...

It's a prejudice in favour of the interests of one's own species against the interests of other species.  And it is similar to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia.

www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/spec...

Can speciesism ever be justified? NO!  All living beings have a moral right to life and freedom from abuse.  Ethics must not stop at the species boundary.  It must be based on animal sentience. 

What is a sentient being?  It is a being that is subjectively aware; that has interests, desires, or wants that don't necessarily have anything to do with human interests.  A sentient being has a mind that can experience frustration, satisfaction, or whatever interests that being has.

Oh, and Mouse and Erey -

It would really help if you could at least learn to spell the words 'bigot' and 'speciesism' correctly.

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

Damn it all to hell, I am really, REALLY sick of people deriding veganism and animal rights, and acting as if speciesism is just some trumped-up tree-hugger nonsense.  It happens to be a legitimate term coined by a psychologist in the 1970s:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

If you would even bother to read the Wiki description (which I highly doubt) you would see that it means 'prejudice against nonhumans based on morally irrelevant physical differences.'

www.richardryder.co.uk/speciesism.html

Whether the hunters of doubters like it or not, this is an actual word:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciesi...

It's a prejudice in favour of the interests of one's own species against the interests of other species.  And it is similar to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia.

www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/spec...

Can speciesism ever be justified? NO!  All living beings have a moral right to life and freedom from abuse.  Ethics must not stop at the species boundary.  It must be based on animal sentience. 

What is a sentient being?  It is a being that is subjectively aware; that has interests, desires, or wants that don't necessarily have anything to do with human interests.  A sentient being has a mind that can experience frustration, satisfaction, or whatever interests that being has.

Oh, and Mouse and Erey -

It would really help if you could at least learn to spell the words 'bigot' and 'speciesism' correctly.

 

 

 

 

I hate to say it but you are a very poor representative of the AR movment or the term speciest.  You are too judgemental and mean.  You make the movement look meaningless

One thing's for sure, your rather severe judgmental attitude and your explosive insults to those you perceive as "unannointed," (e,g., "You dammed sinnahs are-ah all a'goin' to HAY-yull!") make you come across as an angry, frustrated religious evangelist, and do more to chase folks away from your point of view rather than join it.

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:37PM, arielg wrote:

Therefore, IMO, "speciest" is just a meaningless word.

You might as well go around saying, "snargleflarb."

You are right.  It doesn't exist.  It must have been invented by some ignoramus.

I never said it doesn't exist. 

I said, it essentially has not real meaning. It's a purely rhetorical term.