Talk:Speciesism

Monkeying around

Should mention be made of Naruto? Anna Livia (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think PETA actually believed that Naruto deserved the rights to those photos. They were probably just hoping to have the first ever animal to "win" a case for the history books. Shame it didn't pass, it would have been a decent first step towards rights for primates, and would have upset conservatives. RockyRob97 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of non-animalia species

The header of the speciecism ends with the following: "For example, valuing the interests of dogs over the interests of pigs, or valuing the interests of chimpanzees over the interests of cows, or of cows over the interest of bedbugs". I believe representing only the animalia kingdom is not a good argument for either side in a speciesism-antispeciesism argument, and propose this change: "For example, valuing the interests of dogs over the interests of pigs, or valuing the interests of chimpanzees over the interests of shiitake, the interest of lady tulips over cows, or of cows over the interest of bedbugs". Piranhatroll (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

But where's protozoa? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

And rocks and robots? I'm ok with free-range robots, but factory robots are just so inhumane. 110.175.247.252 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A false equivalence, really? No doubt nobody will explain why

The line in the article from Richard Dawkins that "humans will look back on how we treat animals today in a similar vein to how we now look back on our ancestors who kept slaves." links to false equivalence. Why? Don't suppose anybody can actually give an explanation besides "it just is"? RockyRob97 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)