Essay talk:Speciesism Explained

Moral Status on the Basis of Cognitive Ability
For the sake of clarity, do you endorse the notion that cognitive ability forms the basis for moral status? To consider a concrete case, do you think that a person born with anencephaly has or does not have moral status? Serene (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask for two reasons. First, I think I remember seeing you comment somewhere else, perhaps in another essay, on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, and I think you categorized Singer as a proponent of animal welfare rather than animal rights, so I am curious whether you agree with his position in this case. Second, I think the case I mention is problematic for the claim that capacity to suffer is the basis of moral standing, and I would like to hear your thoughts on it. My thinking is that, if the capacity to suffer is the (sole) basis of moral standing, and if people accord moral standing to persons born with anencephaly (who, per the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, are typically unable to feel pain), then it follows that beings with no capacity to experience pain (that is, to suffer) carry moral standing. And if that is the case, it raises questions why moral standing is not extended to, say, plants or bacteria. It seems that either it is arbitrary not to extend moral standing to such things, or else that persons born with anencephaly have no moral standing, which seems (to me, at least) problematic. Serene (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What the hell?
Are you seriously arguing that the life of a disabled person is less valuable than that of a dog, and believing otherwise is an example of bigotry comparable to racism? Like, look at yourself in a mirror. Plutocow (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am, for the reasons expressed in the essay. If you have specific moments to mention in the essay where my thought process went wrong, why it was wrong and the direction it should have went instead, please let me know Juror8 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I'm not interested at all in what you have to say about anything really. A somebody. (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Something tells me nothing would have convinced you, so I don't see this as a loss Juror8 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think our current meat industry is cruel and bad, however you seem to be a literal Vegan Fascist who would have probably supported Aktion T4 if you think Disabled people are lesser than fucking dogs, and this is coming from a man who has a dog. A somebody. (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it for a while, I believe you should be put in a zoo so children can throw peanuts at you. A somebody. (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the author is just trying to make up a logical conclusion to these inconsistent stances, but, again, I wasn't exactly compelled by Essay:The Case Against Zoos either. 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, give some examples of these so-called "inconsistent stances". Also, sorry you weren't compelled by that essay, but I will assume that since you singled out that specific one, you're also implicitly saying that you were convinced by my other ones. Can you explain why that one was not up to scratch? Juror8 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also "senile" is a very vague term. By some accounts Biden or Trump are senile, and they're powerful politicians with a global presence. Are they like dogs in intellect? Vee (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The term reeks of ageism too. Not a fan. 06:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Reread the essay again and ignore where I use that word, I still think the point(s) stands without it Juror8 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)