Posts by Susan Lopez2

ironpanther5 said:I think I mentioned somewhere before that the Democratic Party is actually the economic right, but honestly, I’d describe them more as a messy cocktail of social anarchists and pure economic clientelism. Just because a few members happen to be pulling the strings on massive amounts of cash doesn't make them "right-wing" in any real sense; that whole setup is just built on shady public-private handshakes and semi-legal backroom deals.

The closest thing we have to the actual economic right is the Libertarian Party.

Fair enough, in practice, that's likely how it plays out. However, their core ideology is Liberal capitalism. They don't include any social safety nets or protections for workers' rights in their platform. It is accurate to say they are non-nationalist and socially Liberal.

Historically speaking, the Liberal interest has always been most deeply rooted in the protection of property rights.

When discussing liberalism, one must acknowledge that what we call "liberalism" today bears very little resemblance to how the term was used even a few centuries ago. This holds true for almost all political ideologies. For instance, back in the 18th century, liberals were often proponents of slavery, and leading up to the 20th century, many actively opposed women's suffrage. Concepts such as same-sex marriage weren't even part of their intellectual landscape at the time.

In this country, the only true economic right exists within the Democratic Party.

It isn't a matter of speciesism, but rather anti-speciesism. That specific ideology is known as anti-speciesism; speciesism itself refers to everything else—essentially, the act of prioritizing humans.

At what precise moment did people decide to swap out common sense for religions and nationalism?

Look, I am telling you that neither the traditional left nor the right—not even the liberals—have anything to do with anti-speciesism. This is entirely a new, radical ideology driven by extreme animal rights activists.

ruggedscout98 said:So, does that make speciesists left-wing or right-wing? And what’s the connection between them and liberals?

Specism spans the entire political spectrum; it includes both the left and the right, essentially encompassing anyone who prioritizes human beings over other species. I honestly doubt there is a single person alive who isn't a specist. Perhaps vegetarians come the closest to avoiding it.

I am not entirely sure how liberals—especially the classical variety—fit into this equation. This whole concept of "specism" was essentially cooked up by radical animal rights activists, much like that Singer fellow.

It’s an interesting point. If we accept the premise that humans are merely another species in the animal kingdom, then I struggle to see why we should bother respecting the "rights" of other animals when they certainly don't extend any such courtesy to one another.

Specism is essentially the act of prioritizing humans over all other species. Therefore, specists are those who grant preferential treatment to people, while those fighting for the rights of monkeys are actively opposing specism.

I’ve never actually heard anyone argue against abortion by pointing out its absence in the animal kingdom. It seems the religious right simply operates under the assumption that humanity begins much earlier—that the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is already a person.

ruggedscout98 said:And you think humans aren't animals?

The religious right would argue they aren't, whereas most on the left tend to think they are.

Does homophobia actually exist within the animal kingdom too?

Is Peter Singer some kind of clerical right-winger?