Specialty Item

ruggedscout98 said:The very first word of the first post is "Liberals," and then you pivot right into talking about leftists... the second post (that copy-pasted snippet from some unnamed outlet) is just airing someone else's grievances against the left (not that I have anything particularly glowing to say about them either). After my point that liberalism has zero connection to specism... any sane person with a basic grasp of politics is going to read your posts and conclude you're equating liberals, leftists, and specists. Or was that just some vague way of expressing yourself?

Basically, I never said anything like that.
I mentioned liberals, and then later I brought up what Smith wrote regarding that leftist protest.
I didn't say anything wrong, though I guess I could have linked the left and liberalism through some kind of Zapatero-style logic if I really wanted to.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Basically, I never said anything like that.
I mentioned liberals, and then later I brought up what Smith wrote regarding that leftist protest.
I didn't say anything wrong, though I guess I could have linked the left and liberalism through some kind of Zapatero-style logic if I really wanted to.

Man, this is just pointless nonsense. Liberalism is a leftist option; it always has been.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Basically, I never said anything like that.
I mentioned liberals, and then later I brought up what Smith wrote regarding that leftist protest.
I didn't say anything wrong, though I guess I could have linked the left and liberalism through some kind of Zapatero-style logic if I really wanted to.

You could have, but you didn't... you just linked specism and liberals... fail.

William Turner45 said:Man, this is just pointless nonsense. Liberalism is a leftist option; it always has been.

Where are the actual arguments? Or are you just sharing your personal feelings? "Always"? Was Ante Starčević a leftist?

Rebecca Roberts3 said:I haven't paid much attention to Schola over the last few years. Seeing him pop up on the news occasionally, I simply categorized him as some right-wing Catholic intellectual. However, after reading the piece you shared—"communists from Copenhagen"—it is clear he is quite unstable. The man possesses no genuine connection to spirituality. It’s a pity.

Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

Susan Lopez2 said: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.

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

Jacob Lewis5 said:Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

The leftist Prime Minister of Spain? Who are you talking about? Do you even know who's currently running things in Spain?

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.

Susan Lopez2 said: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.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at here... and I still don't see how vegetarians relate to liberals. That's my constant question. Why are you linking liberals to specists? Or anti-specists? What does liberalism have to do with specism? That was literally the first sentence of this thread.

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.

Susan Lopez2 said: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.

I agree... just try explaining that to the religious right.

ruggedscout98 said:Sure, he coined the term, but the religious right were the ones who actually ran with the politics... I mean, what else is their obsession with "natural order," homophobia, and abortion bans if not an attempt to drag human consciousness down to the level of animals?

What's the issue? To me, there's way more speciesism coming from the religious right than from liberals...

Everything you’re saying feels a bit forced, rather than organic. Think about it: religion is an artificial construct, much like the concept of nations themselves. These are human inventions, not products of Mother Nature. Living in harmony with the laws of nature isn't the same thing as regressing to a primal, animalistic state. In my view, nationalism or fascism is what truly represents that lower level—it's just a primitive instinct to mark out territory, much like how animals claim space, applied through the lens of religion.

Sean Sanders said:Everything you’re saying feels a bit forced, rather than organic. Think about it: religion is an artificial construct, much like the concept of nations themselves. These are human inventions, not products of Mother Nature. Living in harmony with the laws of nature isn't the same thing as regressing to a primal, animalistic state. In my view, nationalism or fascism is what truly represents that lower level—it's just a primitive instinct to mark out territory, much like how animals claim space, applied through the lens of religion.

Exactly...that's my point. My only caveat is that nationalism isn't the same thing as fascism. Nations aren't just made up; if they were, we'd all be speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, and eating the same food. A nation is part of human evolution. Animals don't have nations, but they do have races...which falls under that "territory marking" category. That's fascism, not nationalism. Specism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology that has nothing to do with liberalism.

ruggedscout98 said:Exactly...that's my point. My only caveat is that nationalism isn't the same thing as fascism. Nations aren't just made up; if they were, we'd all be speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, and eating the same food. A nation is part of human evolution. Animals don't have nations, but they do have races...which falls under that "territory marking" category. That's fascism, not nationalism. Specism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology that has nothing to do with liberalism.

Fair enough, but I think you're off base regarding how nations actually function. At its core, a nation is a social construct—a human invention. It's essentially an organizational tool developed by our species. We grouped up because of friction with other groups, shared interests, or often just financial rivalries. We built group cultures because, back in the day, we didn't have global travel allowing everyone to stay in constant contact. Think of it like this: it's similar to how a punk subculture might invent its own flag, a unique slang, and specific customs; give that a few centuries, and you've effectively birthed a new nation. A nation is a culture, a sect, or a community, but it isn't biological. It doesn't have anything to do with bloodlines. After all, if a German shares your blood type, they can donate blood to you perfectly fine. Nature didn't design nations; humans did. They are artificial structures. Take English, for example—we could all communicate across the entire planet using it. If we decided to unify the continents, turn the world into a single state, and dissolve existing borders, we could speak one language and become one global nation. It's entirely a matter of collective will and agreement, not impossibility. If the majority of people on Earth wanted that, it could happen. It would take time for people to mingle and for mindsets to blend, eventually resulting in a new, shared way of life. Anything is possible; the question is simply whether anyone actually wants it to happen.

Seriously, what were you even doing seven centuries ago? Probably just some member of a completely different nation from back when Americans didn't even exist yet. Get it?

ruggedscout98 said:You’re showing some pretty basic political ignorance here... liberals aren't leftists.

Oh, really?!
I mean, what else would they be if we're talking about the social side of things rather than just the economics?!

ruggedscout98 said:The leftist Prime Minister of Spain? Who are you talking about? Do you even know who's currently running things in Spain?

Man, you barely skim the surface of what I write. Zapatero was a leftist PM who got way too caught up in bioethics and completely lost sight of actual social issues.

Check this out—the local anti-speciesism crowd laid out their principles here, and honestly, they don't have anything to do with any right-wing platform. http://stop-specizmu.org/index.php/o-nama

Sean Sanders said:Fair enough, but I think you're off base regarding how nations actually function. At its core, a nation is a social construct—a human invention. It's essentially an organizational tool developed by our species. We grouped up because of friction with other groups, shared interests, or often just financial rivalries. We built group cultures because, back in the day, we didn't have global travel allowing everyone to stay in constant contact. Think of it like this: it's similar to how a punk subculture might invent its own flag, a unique slang, and specific customs; give that a few centuries, and you've effectively birthed a new nation. A nation is a culture, a sect, or a community, but it isn't biological. It doesn't have anything to do with bloodlines. After all, if a German shares your blood type, they can donate blood to you perfectly fine. Nature didn't design nations; humans did. They are artificial structures. Take English, for example—we could all communicate across the entire planet using it. If we decided to unify the continents, turn the world into a single state, and dissolve existing borders, we could speak one language and become one global nation. It's entirely a matter of collective will and agreement, not impossibility. If the majority of people on Earth wanted that, it could happen. It would take time for people to mingle and for mindsets to blend, eventually resulting in a new, shared way of life. Anything is possible; the question is simply whether anyone actually wants it to happen.

Different languages, cultural traits, and history... that's what makes a people (a nation), and it's pretty far from speciesism. Sure, there are varying degrees of intensity regarding the points we're discussing, but personally, I don't think a nation is "artificial." A nation is a product of evolution—the moment someone lives through a period and decides where they belong. In other words, national identity is a matter of personal will, a choice. Anyway, getting into a deep debate over whether something based on choice is "artificial" isn't really the point here, so I'll leave that for another time... okay?

ironpanther5 said:Oh, really?!
I mean, what else would they be if we're talking about the social side of things rather than just the economics?!

So liberals

Sean Sanders said:Seriously, what were you even doing seven centuries ago? Probably just some member of a completely different nation from back when Americans didn't even exist yet. Get it?

A nation is a cultural category—it's the inevitable result of social evolution moving from the individual to the primitive community, then to tribes, then peoples, and finally to the modern nation. Therefore, a nation isn't "invented"—it is a necessary byproduct of human development.