: On those rare occaisions we have crossed swords, man, I have thought you to be an adequately thought thought through and eloquent reactionary..of the best sort.. ;)Eloquent reationary, eh? I like that - I think.
: I don't actually recall accusing you of kneee jerk reaction, I accused you of being wrong and being ill-informed, tehre is a difference, squire..
No, not you Red. You didn't accuse me. I was speaking generally when
I said a lot of responses are not substantive and are only knee jerk
reactions to push button phrases. It's frustrating to make what you
think is a valid point only to have it overlooked. It sort of
diminishes the purpose of this board when people do this. Mostly, I try
to respond to the entire post unless the writer has merely provided a
list of links or a book title to answer to. I generally see those
people as not wishing to debate single issues, but rather, claiming
victory because of the fact that someone or some organization had the
initiative to set up a web-site or write a book. That's a lame way to
go about making a point.
:: Indeed, who isn't. Off course I think in acadeic circles Singer is quite mainstream, but thats by academic standards. If we're going to take that route of course Milton's paradise lost had a mere 1200 readers when it was first published (English Population then roughly three million) so size of readership, in total relation to the population is not the main criterion of mainstreamness (many people use shakespearean quotes without ever having read or seen the man himself...). If not heard Dark Side of the moon..
I probably shouldn't enter into a tirade about what is happening to
intellectual integrity in what is called education today. Suffice it to
say that the academic world generates more respect than it should for
having shifted the emphasis from how to think to what to
think.
:: That is teh entire thrust of Singer's utiolitarianism, like I said, that there is no logical reason not to see animals as ethically considerable beings.
If you mean that we should consider animal treatment as a subject to
be included in the realm of ethics I agree but only in the context of
any other resource to be responsible for. This Singer guys surely wants
to go further than this though, as denoted in your following statement.
:: indeed He campaigns for the creation of Gorrilistan IIRC. Animals are to be counted as equal to humans, the only entry criteria to the utilitarian equation being their ability to suffer.
Curious. Who will speak for the animals? Dr. Doolittle? If people
can't see the danger in this then I am at a loss for words. There is no
point in giving animals equal status to man unless that equality
carries with it the weight of the state to enforce their legal rights.
What will those rights be? Will animals retain the right to tear each
other into shreds and man be denied this right? Who will speak for the
animals? May I?
:: He calls the assumption that humans are superior, or that animals are not to be considered thus, speciesism. I disagree, being a humanist, but what the hey....like the man said, even if a Lion could speak, we could not understand it...
Ageism, sexism, racism,... all those nasty 'isms that formerly
applied to human interaction are now being (none too subtly) applied to
animals too. It makes my original point again. The animal rights
movement cannot gain ground by attempting to manipulate emotions so
they've taken to attempting to intellectualize their agenda. But
Animals and humans are not equal and everyone knows it. This will fail
too. Additionally, If animals and humans are equal, then we who reside
at the top of the food chain will dominate by natural law and eat what
we please. No amount of intellectualizing will stop the lion from
shredding the lamb.
Stuart Gort
