My five pet peeves regarding English vocabulary/syntax: 1. Typing “your” when “YOU’RE” (you are) is required. 2. Typing “their” when “THERE” is required (and vice versa). 3. Using “people” when “PERSONS” is required. 4. Using “literally” when “VIRTUALLY” is required. 5. Using the two words “OFF OF” in succession.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas oh I'm so sorry YOUR upset at my English, THEIR are so many other things to be angry at like how rude people have gotten now days like yesterday when I went to the library a group of PERSONS started yelling at me it was so bad that it was like I was LITERALLY going to die OFF OF a broken heart. P.S djjshgahajbzkxnsjxnjsjsjsjndhsjjsnjxijdjbsjdksjjsjsnsjsjjsndjsjij,jjsjzjzniznshzjjshsjjsjsbshhxjbxjjxjxj. Jsjsjsjjsjsjjsjbxjsjjsjsjsjjsjsjxjxjdjtgsy.
@theoperkinson6574 If I am to be completely honest, I must admit that I have never read in full, a single article, essay paper, or book by Peter Singer, even though I have downloaded a couple of his works from the Internet. This is because, like most every other so-called “ethicist” in the Western philosophical tradition, I find it almost impossible to read his words, due to the fact that they are brimming with poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but most importantly, overflowing with left-wing euphemisms (the word “gay” was misspelled as “cay” in the very first line of one of his works!), and flawed concepts and terminology in relation to ethics. In order to provide just a couple of examples of Peter’s INCREDIBLY naïve and incorrect notions, just from the very first page of his most famous book: 1. “All Animals Are Equal” is the title of the first chapter. However, as amply demonstrated in more than a couple of places within the body of this Holiest of All Holy Scriptures (yet, most thoroughly in the second subsection of the chapter that deals with the wicked, pernicious ideology of feminism, Ch. 26), equality is non-existent in this world of matter, as it can exist ONLY in the conceptual realm (such as in mathematics) and in the quantum sphere (e.g. two subatomic particles of the same type, are essentially equal). 2. On the very opening page of one edition of his book, “Animal Liberation”, Singer repeatedly uses the term “discriminate/ discrimination” no less than thrice, in a purely negative manner, even though, as FULLY demonstrated in the Glossary entry “racism”, not only does the word hold a completely and utterly neutral tenor, it is, in most cases, a truly holy and righteous (“dharmic”) act for a human to properly discriminate between those of different races in many instances, as well as those of different sexes (of which there are but two - shocking to learn!), not to mention of diverse social classes and different ages. Logically speaking, if Doctor Peter Singer’s books were even close to being an accurate and authoritative exposition of animal ethics, his writings would almost definitely have received PRECISELY the same response that this Holiest of Holy Scriptures receives from one and all (including so-called “ethical vegans”), and that is, utter derision and contempt, for the truth is very difficult to bear. speciesism: British psychologist, Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”. Consequently, ANTI-SPECIESISM seems to be an egalitarian position, similar to the ideology of anti-racism, which (at least in the minds of the vast majority of humans) advocates for the fundamental equality of all races and ethnicities. In the animal rights movement, “speciesism” normally implies the belief that all species of animal life are fundamentally EQUAL. This view is an extremist position, bordering on pathological, as it contradicts basic principles of biological science and applied ethics (see Chapter 12 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” to properly understand both meta-ethics and normative ethics). Anybody who believes that all animal species are equal in moral value will not be able to sustain that view when confronted with the option of destroying the life of either a gnat or that of a fellow human being. Equality is non-existent in this relative sphere, with the possible exception of equality in ABSTRACT concepts such as mathematics (for instance, 1+1 is precisely equal to 2), and arguably on the atomic and QUANTUM levels (for example, two hydrogen atoms are essentially identical, as are two gluon subatomic particles). Opposition to speciesism is a truly INANE philosophical position, because, according to the principle of dharma (see that entry in this Glossary), it is normal, natural, and necessary for a member of any particular species of animal to have a preference for individuals of its own species. The negation or the suppression of in-group preference, especially in the case of humans’ preference for members of their own species in survival situations, is adharmic (i.e. unlawful), even if a higher species of life was to threaten our own species. For example, if a pack of wolves was hunting a herd of deer, why would one of the deer encourage a family member to run in the direction of the wolves? That would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the deer’s own species. If a race of superior aliens was to take-over the world, what kind of Homo sapiens would assist the aliens to conquer our own planet? Only a human who was mentally deranged, I would posit, unless that human believed that the destruction of humanity would be TRULY beneficial to the planet (and even then, the typical human would seriously question the sanity of that individual, as it is seems to contradict common civility). Therefore, to claim that it is immoral for a human being to be biased towards those of his own species in most every circumstance, is blatantly erroneous, just as it is fallacious to assert that one should not be partial towards one’s gender or race in specific cases. If you happened upon a lion or a tiger mauling a fellow human being who was attacking the cat’s family, would you consider that big cat to be evil, immoral, or simply wrong in its behaviour towards the human? Most probably not, because if you were sufficiently wise and intelligent, you would realize that the lion or the tiger was merely acting on its natural in-group instinctual preferences. On the contrary, in fact - if any non-human animal was to assist a Homo sapiens to attack its own family members, one would be fully warranted in assuming that the animal was afflicted with some kind of psychological abnormality! Thus, speciesism is JUSTIFIED. I have a particularly hilarious ANECDOTE in relation to this insane, delusional “philosophy”: an Englishman I befriended on a social media website informed me that he would gladly sacrifice his life for the life of a cockroach that may be killed in the home of a vegan who believes that it is morally-justifiable to exterminate vermin. And just in case one may believe that he was not actually serious, I can assure the reader that he was indeed serious in his statement. I know him quite well, and because his understanding of both metaethics and normative ethics is poor, he truly would sacrifice himself for a mere insect (although, I cannot imagine that he would actually go through with the deed if the situation presented itself to him - such is the nature of hypocritical, egalitarian leftists). Therefore, according to the definitions of “speciesism” given above, I, the author of this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, am exceedingly proud to be among those SANE vegans who consider my own species to be of greater moral value than the life of a microbe or a fly. This does not imply that I would wantonly destroy the life of an inferior animal simply for the fact that it is not human, but that I would most definitely choose to destroy the life of an animal of another species in the case of self-defence, in order to survive a famine, or to protect my food supply, all of which adheres to the correct definition of the word “vegan”. As a general rule, one ought not exterminate vermin from one’s home or workplace if one is unwilling to kill the animal with one’s bare hands. In my particular case, for example, I am completely comfortable smacking a mosquito or an ant that is crawling on my skin, but I could never bring myself to catch a rodent with my hands and bash it to death with my fists. Rather, I would prefer to trap it in a cage and release it. So, obviously, I would never (and could never, at least psychologically) murder a cow or a pig, even if I was dying of starvation. Therefore, according to the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the rule that ought to be followed is that the higher the species (on the evolutionary scale), the more morally-valuable it is. I am certain that you, the reader, would instinctively attempt to rescue a dog or a rabbit over a drowning insect or lizard. Of course, it is not implied that every human intuition is morally-correct, yet in that particular case, it indeed conforms to authentic dharma. Incidentally, this pyramidical hierarchy of animal sentience/consciousness applies WITHIN the human species too. See the subsections regarding moral dilemmas and the ethics of abortion in Chapter 12, where, in the latter subsection, it is mentioned that the life of an embryo is not as morally-valuable as that of a five year-old child. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the typical person, when confronted with the choice of rescuing either a five year-old child or a batch of one hundred frozen embryos, would immediately and instinctively decide to save the five year-old child. Cf. “veganism”; “sentience”. In summary, speciesism (as defined by the Englishman who coined the term, as well as those fools who accede to his objectively-evil “philosophy”, such as my fellow countryman, The Devilish Doctor Peter Singer) is a legitimate, sane and rational position to hold. However, if Dr. Ryder had included the clause, “Speciesism is an UNJUSTIFIED prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species...” in his definition of the word, it would hold a completely legitimate tenor.
Interesting your doing podcast now
My five pet peeves regarding English vocabulary/syntax:
1. Typing “your” when “YOU’RE” (you are) is required.
2. Typing “their” when “THERE” is required (and vice versa).
3. Using “people” when “PERSONS” is required.
4. Using “literally” when “VIRTUALLY” is required.
5. Using the two words “OFF OF” in succession.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas oh I'm so sorry YOUR upset at my English, THEIR are so many other things to be angry at like how rude people have gotten now days like yesterday when I went to the library a group of PERSONS started yelling at me it was so bad that it was like I was LITERALLY going to die OFF OF a broken heart.
P.S djjshgahajbzkxnsjxnjsjsjsjndhsjjsnjxijdjbsjdksjjsjsnsjsjjsndjsjij,jjsjzjzniznshzjjshsjjsjsbshhxjbxjjxjxj. Jsjsjsjjsjsjjsjbxjsjjsjsjsjjsjsjxjxjdjtgsy.
Jack is OBVIOUSLY a wiser guy than Pete Singer (which, to be frank, is not such a great acomplishment).
8:45
Good and bad are UNAMBIGUOUSLY relative. ;)
Based on what do you say Singer isn't wise? Have you read some of his books?
@theoperkinson6574
If I am to be completely honest, I must admit that I have never read in full, a single article, essay paper, or book by Peter Singer, even though I have downloaded a couple of his works from the Internet. This is because, like most every other so-called “ethicist” in the Western philosophical tradition, I find it almost impossible to read his words, due to the fact that they are brimming with poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but most importantly, overflowing with left-wing euphemisms (the word “gay” was misspelled as “cay” in the very first line of one of his works!), and flawed concepts and terminology in relation to ethics. In order to provide just a couple of examples of Peter’s INCREDIBLY naïve and incorrect notions, just from the very first page of his most famous book:
1. “All Animals Are Equal” is the title of the first chapter. However, as amply demonstrated in more than a couple of places within the body of this Holiest of All Holy Scriptures (yet, most thoroughly in the second subsection of the chapter that deals with the wicked, pernicious ideology of feminism, Ch. 26), equality is non-existent in this world of matter, as it can exist ONLY in the conceptual realm (such as in mathematics) and in the quantum sphere (e.g. two subatomic particles of the same type, are essentially equal).
2. On the very opening page of one edition of his book, “Animal Liberation”, Singer repeatedly uses the term “discriminate/
discrimination” no less than thrice, in a purely negative manner, even though, as FULLY demonstrated in the Glossary entry “racism”, not only does the word hold a completely and utterly neutral tenor, it is, in most cases, a truly holy and righteous (“dharmic”) act for a human to properly discriminate between those of different races in many instances, as well as those of different sexes (of which there are but two - shocking to learn!), not to mention of diverse social classes and different ages.
Logically speaking, if Doctor Peter Singer’s books were even close to being an accurate and authoritative exposition of animal ethics, his writings would almost definitely have received PRECISELY the same response that this Holiest of Holy Scriptures receives from one and all (including so-called “ethical vegans”), and that is, utter derision and contempt, for the truth is very difficult to bear.
speciesism:
British psychologist, Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”.
Consequently, ANTI-SPECIESISM seems to be an egalitarian position, similar to the ideology of anti-racism, which (at least in the minds of the vast majority of humans) advocates for the fundamental equality of all races and ethnicities.
In the animal rights movement, “speciesism” normally implies the belief that all species of animal life are fundamentally EQUAL. This view is an extremist position, bordering on pathological, as it contradicts basic principles of biological science and applied ethics (see Chapter 12 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” to properly understand both meta-ethics and normative ethics).
Anybody who believes that all animal species are equal in moral value will not be able to sustain that view when confronted with the option of destroying the life of either a gnat or that of a fellow human being. Equality is non-existent in this relative sphere, with the possible exception of equality in ABSTRACT concepts such as mathematics (for instance, 1+1 is precisely equal to 2), and arguably on the atomic and QUANTUM levels (for example, two hydrogen atoms are essentially identical, as are two gluon subatomic particles).
Opposition to speciesism is a truly INANE philosophical position, because, according to the principle of dharma (see that entry in this Glossary), it is normal, natural, and necessary for a member of any particular species of animal to have a preference for individuals of its own species. The negation or the suppression of in-group preference, especially in the case of humans’ preference for members of their own species in survival situations, is adharmic (i.e. unlawful), even if a higher species of life was to threaten our own species.
For example, if a pack of wolves was hunting a herd of deer, why would one of the deer encourage a family member to run in the direction of the wolves? That would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the deer’s own species. If a race of superior aliens was to take-over the world, what kind of Homo sapiens would assist the aliens to conquer our own planet? Only a human who was mentally deranged, I would posit, unless that human believed that the destruction of humanity would be TRULY beneficial to the planet (and even then, the typical human would seriously question the sanity of that individual, as it is seems to contradict common civility).
Therefore, to claim that it is immoral for a human being to be biased towards those of his own species in most every circumstance, is blatantly erroneous, just as it is fallacious to assert that one should not be partial towards one’s gender or race in specific cases.
If you happened upon a lion or a tiger mauling a fellow human being who was attacking the cat’s family, would you consider that big cat to be evil, immoral, or simply wrong in its behaviour towards the human? Most probably not, because if you were sufficiently wise and intelligent, you would realize that the lion or the tiger was merely acting on its natural in-group instinctual preferences. On the contrary, in fact - if any non-human animal was to assist a Homo sapiens to attack its own family members, one would be fully warranted in assuming that the animal was afflicted with some kind of psychological abnormality! Thus, speciesism is JUSTIFIED.
I have a particularly hilarious ANECDOTE in relation to this insane, delusional “philosophy”: an Englishman I befriended on a social media website informed me that he would gladly sacrifice his life for the life of a cockroach that may be killed in the home of a vegan who believes that it is morally-justifiable to exterminate vermin. And just in case one may believe that he was not actually serious, I can assure the reader that he was indeed serious in his statement. I know him quite well, and because his understanding of both metaethics and normative ethics is poor, he truly would sacrifice himself for a mere insect (although, I cannot imagine that he would actually go through with the deed if the situation presented itself to him - such is the nature of hypocritical, egalitarian leftists).
Therefore, according to the definitions of “speciesism” given above, I, the author of this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, am exceedingly proud to be among those SANE vegans who consider my own species to be of greater moral value than the life of a microbe or a fly.
This does not imply that I would wantonly destroy the life of an inferior animal simply for the fact that it is not human, but that I would most definitely choose to destroy the life of an animal of another species in the case of self-defence, in order to survive a famine, or to protect my food supply, all of which adheres to the correct definition of the word “vegan”. As a general rule, one ought not exterminate vermin from one’s home or workplace if one is unwilling to kill the animal with one’s bare hands. In my particular case, for example, I am completely comfortable smacking a mosquito or an ant that is crawling on my skin, but I could never bring myself to catch a rodent with my hands and bash it to death with my fists. Rather, I would prefer to trap it in a cage and release it. So, obviously, I would never (and could never, at least psychologically) murder a cow or a pig, even if I was dying of starvation.
Therefore, according to the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the rule that ought to be followed is that the higher the species (on the evolutionary scale), the more morally-valuable it is. I am certain that you, the reader, would instinctively attempt to rescue a dog or a rabbit over a drowning insect or lizard. Of course, it is not implied that every human intuition is morally-correct, yet in that particular case, it indeed conforms to authentic dharma. Incidentally, this pyramidical hierarchy of animal sentience/consciousness applies WITHIN the human species too. See the subsections regarding moral dilemmas and the ethics of abortion in Chapter 12, where, in the latter subsection, it is mentioned that the life of an embryo is not as morally-valuable as that of a five year-old child. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the typical person, when confronted with the choice of rescuing either a five year-old child or a batch of one hundred frozen embryos, would immediately and instinctively decide to save the five year-old child. Cf. “veganism”; “sentience”.
In summary, speciesism (as defined by the Englishman who coined the term, as well as those fools who accede to his objectively-evil “philosophy”, such as my fellow countryman, The Devilish Doctor Peter Singer) is a legitimate, sane and rational position to hold. However, if Dr. Ryder had included the clause, “Speciesism is an UNJUSTIFIED prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species...” in his definition of the word, it would hold a completely legitimate tenor.