This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
I finally read SPECIESISM , by Joan Dunayer, which was published a couple of years after ANIMAL EQUALITY , which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. environmentalists" would have to value the life of an Atlantic salmon more than the life of a human because, in environmental terms, there are too few Atlantic salmons and far too many humans.
It seems like the answer to most questions/responses to most issues is one of these: Speciesism. Why choose enslavement, rape, domination and slaughter? Yes, it is hypocritical (speciesism), but who said that we either protect humans or animals? Where do people get that idea? Let's just say the ban was meaningful.
But the message remains the same, and it's the only such message available in film to my knowledge (and please let me know of any others): there's simply no way to kindly, politely, "humanely" take someone's life when you don't need to. Perhaps the best feature of the film is the various voices telling a similar story. For all of us.
His passion and compassion for humans is immense, but he appears to have some kind of mental block with nonhuman animals. I suppose speciesism/human exceptionalism is at the heart of the matter. He just doesn't believe that other beings lives might have a purpose all their own that is entirely unrelated to humans.
And now that I've read Animal Equality and begun Speciesism , I think I know why. Minus that role, the term implies, such an animal has no place; if they aren't some human's companion, or their companionship fails to please, they can be abandoned or killed" (8). What if slaughter were freed (miraculously) of all terror and pain?
For Engber, who dispassionately describes procedures most of the time, the "advances" in the medical care of humans are all well worth what he and other vivisectionists do to dogs and other sentient nonhumans. By the end of my time as researcher, I was performing behavioral experiments on humans. It "guarantees humane treatment?"
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content